Floor Statements

Mr. President, I begin by thanking my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee who did the hard work of exhaustively examining the nominee's record. They have done what the Constitution requires of us and the Founders intended--that Senators take seriously their role in giving advise and consent on members of the President's Cabinet.

The Attorney General is our Nation's chief law enforcement officer, tasked with upholding the Constitution and our laws.

While I believe Mr. Gonzales has a truly remarkable personal story, the poor judgment he has exercised in his role as White House Counsel has resulted in a serious consequences that cannot simply be overlooked when considering his nomination.

I will be voting against Mr. Gonzales for two main reasons.

First, Mr. Gonzales was the legal architect of the administration's policies on torture.

In 2002, when the intelligence community sought legal guidance about interrogation techniques, Mr. Gonzales asked the Justice Department to come up with legal justification for abusive interrogation tactics. The torture memo was drafted at his request and tacitly accepted by Mr. Gonzales. The Defense Department then used that memo to justify horrific and abusive interrogation tactics in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

This memo sets forth a position so outlandish that even the Dean of Yale Law School has said that much of Saddam's Hussein's horrific abuses--like cutting off fingers, electrical shock, branding and burning of skin--would not meet the memo's definition of torture.

Mr. Gonzales has never clearly repudiated this memo even though it has been a stain on our law and national reputation. Mr. Gonzales was asked about this memo at his confirmation hearings before the Judiciary Committee. Senator Leahy specifically asked him if he agreed with the memo's very narrow reading of the law about what constitutes torture. Mr. Gonzales replied: ``I don't recall today

whether or not I was in agreement with all of the analysis, but I don't have a disagreement with the conclusions then reached by the Department.'' Mr. Gonzales's response was completely unacceptable.

It was his acceptance of this memo that formed the basis of administration policy for 2 years until the Department of Justice repudiated it on December 30, 2004, 1 week before Mr. Gonzales's hearings.

Second, Mr. Gonzales played a central role in shaping the Bush administration's policy toward detainees.

He called the Geneva Conventions ``quaint'' and ``obsolete''. And he advised President Bush to deny prisoners the protections under the Geneva Conventions, which had been the unbroken practice of the United States for over 50 years, and which have protected our soldiers since 1949.

He did this over the objection of Secretary Powell and State Department legal counsel. They warned that this advice could undermine military culture, generate confusion about how to treat detainees, and ultimately lead to abuse. Tragically, this is exactly what happened.

The torture and other abuses of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan have done immeasurable damage to America's standing in the world, have undermined our military rules and traditions, and exposed our own soldiers and citizens to greater risks.

I cannot support a nominee who has done so much damage to America's fundamental values and moral leadership in the world, and has taken actions and positions that put our soldiers and citizens at greater risk.

Mr. President, last week I had the pleasure of joining members of the California Missions Foundation at Mission San Diego to celebrate the passage of the California Missions Preservation Act, which became law in 2004.

In opening the celebration, Missions Foundation Executive Director Knox Mellon expressed his gratitude to the Senate and House for passing the Missions Preservation Act, which will help my State preserve a priceless element of our historical and cultural heritage.

By way of expressing my own gratitude to you and our colleagues, I want to share some of Mr. Mellon's remarks with you:

There is a tendency for me to believe the primary

beneficiary of the legislation Senator Boxer both carried and

succeeded in getting signed by the President would be the

California Missions Foundation because it acts as a conduit,

a pass-through for directing monies to each of the twenty-one

historic missions. But the real beneficiaries are the people

not only of California but the nation. The missions are

California's Pyramids. They are a part of our past. They help

symbolize the nation's western beginnings.

Of all the institutions that define California's heritage,

none has the historic significance and emotional impact of

the chain of Spanish missions that stretch from San Diego to

Sonoma. The missions are an important part of the state's

cultural fabric and must be preserved as priceless historic

monuments.

I thank our colleagues in Congress, particularly Senator Dianne Feinstein and Representatives Sam Farr and David Dreier, who worked diligently to see this bill signed into law. I also thank Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for his support.

And finally, I thank Knox Mellon and the California Missions Foundation Board for their strong dedication to this cause. Through the collaboration of Federal, State, and private efforts, our missions have hope for the future.

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize Santa Cruz County Sheriff Mark Tracy, who retired after 32 years of dedicated service.

Sheriff Tracy is a Santa Cruz County native who was educated in the county's public schools. In 1972, he received his bachelor of science degree in criminology from California State University at Fresno. Upon receiving his degree, Sheriff Tracy immediately returned to his home in Santa Cruz County, where he began his law enforcement career with the Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office.

Sheriff Tracy has held many positions within the Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office. As a deputy, he worked in the Patrol Division, the Coroner's Unit, and the Detention Bureau. He quickly rose through the ranks, and was soon promoted to sergeant, and then to lieutenant. In those positions, Sheriff Tracy managed the Street Narcotics and Gang units, served as the watch commander of the county jail, and supervised deputies in the Patrol Division, among other duties. Because of his expertise, Sheriff Tracy also served as the coordinator of the Search and Rescue Team, was a founding member of the Hostage Negotiating Team, and was instrumental in the planning and construction of the Roundtree Medium Security Detention Facility. In 1994, Sheriff Tracy was overwhelmingly elected by the residents of Santa Cruz County to serve as the sheriff-coroner. In 2002, he was successfully reelected, and served in the capacity of sheriff-coroner until his retirement in December 2004.

Among his many accomplishments, Sheriff Tracy has also served as chair of the Santa Cruz County Criminal Justice Council and the Santa Cruz County Commission on Domestic Violence. He has been an active member of the California State Sheriffs' Association and the California State Coroners' Association. Sheriff Tracy has worked tirelessly with local elected officials, schools, and community organizations to foster a strong sense of community in Santa Cruz County. I have collaborated with Sheriff Tracy in the past,

and I can attest to his commitment to the community he served.

Sheriff Tracy's service to the State of California and dedication to public safety is inspiring. I am confident that, even in retirement, Sheriff Tracy will continue to touch lives with his good will and compassion.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I want to begin today by again thanking Chairman Lugar and Senator Biden, our ranking member, for a very fair debate on the nomination of Dr. Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. I know these votes usually go overwhelmingly for the nominee. The last time there was any vote against a nominee, I think the most votes were Kissinger at 7 votes. So I know that what I am doing is not about winning a vote; it is simply about telling the truth as I see it and other Members telling it as they see it.

At the end of the day, when Senators vote, some will be very enthusiastic about the nominee and feel very good about their vote. Others will be a little anxious. I sense with Senator Biden, he certainly has anxieties over it, but he is very hopeful. And knowing Joe Biden as I do, that definitely fits his character because I think he gave Condoleezza Rice opportunity after opportunity after opportunity to set the record straight, to level with the committee. Senator Biden was not on the floor yesterday, but I kind of replayed his give and take with future Secretary Rice on the issue of how many troops were trained, and he was literally begging her to please be candid. It is interesting because after that give and take, which was picked up by the news media, Ambassador Negroponte came into it and said: Clearly, there are not 120,000, but there are more than 4,000.

All this dancing around is not academic because, as Senator Biden clearly stated and as we all know, our exit strategy in Iraq is based upon the ability of the Iraqis to defend themselves certainly. We all are working toward that day, but we can't do it if we are not going to be honest about how it is going, and we can't help the administration if they don't level with us as to how things are going.

I found it interesting--and this has nothing to do with this particular nomination--that the White House Chief of Staff called those of us who wanted to debate this ``petty.'' I saw one clip of him saying that the two Senators--he didn't mention the names--who were trying to get this nomination to the Senate floor and have some time to talk about it were ``small.'' I don't think he was talking about my height. That is showing such a disrespect to the American people, as we go around the world trying to bring democracy. It is something we all want to do. We may have different ways of going about it, but we want to do it. How do we stand tall if we don't uphold our Constitution? Our Founders believed it was crucial for the Senate to play a strong role in the selection of these very important and powerful positions.

Well, thanks to Senators Lugar and Biden, we have done that. I am glad.

The reason I am going to be voting no is clear to anyone who has followed this debate. I asked Condoleezza Rice a series of questions in five different areas. I gave her every opportunity to correct the record. I asked her about her statements that the aluminum tubes Saddam was buying could only be used for nuclear weapons, and she talked about the mushroom cloud and frightened the American people at a time when we know she had the information that there was a very strong dispute going on in the intelligence community and that, in fact, she had known in 2001 about this issue. She refused to budge.

I asked her about her continual statements that al-Qaida and Saddam were close. It was not true. At the time she made those comments, the State Department itself put out a very important map--this was 1 month after 9/11--saying that in fact there was no al-Qaida whatsoever in Iraq. They were nowhere in Iraq. She refused to budge.

I ask unanimous consent that I may have an additional 4 minutes.

I thank the Chair.

I asked Dr. Rice about my concerns in five areas. I don't fault the President for picking someone who believes in this war, who helped him in her position. That is not the issue. The issue has to do with the lack of candor that continues to come from Dr. Rice.

As recently as a few months ago she wrote a letter which resulted in a very important amendment in the Intelligence bill being stripped from that bill. This was a bill by Senators McCain and Lieberman, and this provision was written in part by Senator Durbin. It was an antitorture provision. She opposed it. She wrote that she opposed it. When I asked her about it, she denied that she opposed it, when she had opposed it in writing.

I know there are other Senators coming to the floor of the Senate and saying this argument doesn't hold because she made statements that came from faulty intelligence. If that were the case, I would have no problem with Dr. Rice. Everybody knows there was faulty intelligence. But she continues to put out these misstatements. As a matter of fact, in front of the committee, if one listened closely, she muddied the waters even more. So I gave her the chance to clear it up, and she didn't. That is bad for the Senate. It is bad for the American people.

Dr. King said--and I often repeat it--our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. This debate mattered. Responsibility matters. Accountability matters. It matters when you give someone a chance to correct the record that is replete with half- truths and misstatements, and they don't take that opportunity.

Dr. Rice is a role model. She is smart. She is intelligent. She is qualified. She is loyal to this President. I don't question any of that. All of that makes everyone proud. The fact is, it would have been very condescending and inappropriate to have someone as skilled as Dr. Rice before a committee, someone as involved in setting the course of this war as Dr. Rice before the Foreign Relations Committee, and not ask her the kind of questions we all did.

I don't know whether we will have two votes against this nominee or four or seven or eight. I really don't know because I haven't asked one colleague how they are going to vote. This has not been the point of what I have done. I have simply tried to say that holding people accountable is important, that this war matters, that we need to look at the mistakes of the past so we don't repeat them, so we don't send our young people into another war based on hyped-up rhetoric and half- truths.

I thank my colleagues all and again say to my chairman how much I appreciate him. I look forward to moving past this on to the other work of our committee and the other work of the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today in Glendale, CA, there was a tragic commuter train crash. All of the details of the crash are not available at this moment. However, at least 10 people were killed and over 100 injured. The National Transportation Safety Board has already sent a team to investigate.

I have been talking about the problem of grade crossings and the need for grade separations for several years.

According to the Federal Railroad Administration, ``grade crossings are the site of the greatest number of collisions and injuries'' in the railroad industry. In 2000, there were 3,502 incidents at grade crossings.

In addition, the large volume of freight train traffic from California's ports to the rest of the Nation is a public safety hazard on many communities

in California where traffic, including emergency vehicles, is severely delayed at these grade crossings.

In Riverside, CA, from January 2001 to January 2003, trains delayed ambulance and fire protection 88 times. This translates into more people possibly dying from health emergencies such as heart attacks and larger and more deadly fires. If there is another terrorist attack, imagine what would happen if emergency first responders could not get across the tracks.

To address the safety problem of accidents and other safety hazards at grade crossings, I am introducing the Rail Crossing Safety Act, part of which passed the Senate twice in the last Congress as part larger railroad bills considered in the Commerce Committee.

This legislation would direct the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with State and local government officials, to conduct a study of the impact of grade crossings both on accidents and on the ability of emergency responders to perform public safety and security duties. This would include the ability of police, fire, ambulances, and other emergency vehicles to cross the railroad tracks during emergencies.

The second part of the legislation would authorize funds for the Secretary of Transportation to provide grants to State and local governments to undertake grade separations, in other words to build bridges and tunnels.

Today's incident in Glendale only underscores the needs to make our streets and rail lines safer. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. President, today in Glendale, CA, there was a tragic commuter train crash. All of the details of the crash are not available at this moment. However, at least 10 people were killed and over 100 injured. The National Transportation Safety Board has already sent a team to investigate.

I have been talking about the problem of grade crossings and the need for grade separations for several years.

According to the Federal Railroad Administration, ``grade crossings are the site of the greatest number of collisions and injuries'' in the railroad industry. In 2000, there were 3,502 incidents at grade crossings.

In addition, the large volume of freight train traffic from California's ports to the rest of the Nation is a public safety hazard on many communities

in California where traffic, including emergency vehicles, is severely delayed at these grade crossings.

In Riverside, CA, from January 2001 to January 2003, trains delayed ambulance and fire protection 88 times. This translates into more people possibly dying from health emergencies such as heart attacks and larger and more deadly fires. If there is another terrorist attack, imagine what would happen if emergency first responders could not get across the tracks.

To address the safety problem of accidents and other safety hazards at grade crossings, I am introducing the Rail Crossing Safety Act, part of which passed the Senate twice in the last Congress as part larger railroad bills considered in the Commerce Committee.

This legislation would direct the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with State and local government officials, to conduct a study of the impact of grade crossings both on accidents and on the ability of emergency responders to perform public safety and security duties. This would include the ability of police, fire, ambulances, and other emergency vehicles to cross the railroad tracks during emergencies.

The second part of the legislation would authorize funds for the Secretary of Transportation to provide grants to State and local governments to undertake grade separations, in other words to build bridges and tunnels.

Today's incident in Glendale only underscores the needs to make our streets and rail lines safer. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. President, I compliment my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for a very good and thoughtful debate today on this particular nominee.

I come to the Senate today to report and inform my colleagues on the Secretary of State confirmation hearings held in the Foreign Relations Committee last week.

By now, everyone knows I posed some very direct questions to Dr. Rice about her statements leading up to the Iraqi war and beyond. As National Security Adviser, Dr. Rice gave confidential advice to the President regarding the war in Iraq. She also made the case for the war in Iraq to the American people through hours of television appearances and commentary.

My questions, every one of them, revolved around her own words. As a result of my questions and comments at the hearing, I have been hailed as both a hero and a petty person. I have been called both courageous and partisan. I have been very surprised at this response. Tens of thousands of people signed a petition asking me to hold Dr. Rice accountable for her past statements.

The reason I am so surprised at this reaction is that I believe I am doing my job. It is as simple at that. I am on the Foreign Relations Committee. This is a very high profile nominee. This is a Secretary of State nomination in a time of war. My constituents want me to be thorough. They want me to exercise the appropriate role of a Senator.

Let's look for a moment at what that role is, how it was defined by our Founding Fathers. Article II, section 2, clause 2, of the Constitution, which I have sworn to uphold, says the President:

shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the

Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and

Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all

other officers of the United States, whose appointments are

not herein otherwise provided for.

The Cabinet is covered in Article II, section 2, clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution.

Now, if you read this, it does not say anywhere in here that the President shall nominate and the Senate shall confirm. It says the President ``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate'' shall make the appointments.

Why is it our Founders believed it was crucial for the Senate to play such a strong role in the selection of these very important and powerful members of the administration and members of the bench? It is because our Founders believed that the executive branch must never be too powerful or too overbearing.

In Federal No. 76, Alexander Hamilton wrote:

It will readily be comprehended that a man who had himself

the sole disposition of offices would be governed much more

by his private inclinations and interests than when he was

bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion

and determination of a different and independent body . . .

In today's vernacular, any President needs a check and balance. That certainly applies today, and it would apply to a Democratic President as much as to a Republican President.

Our Founders are clear, and the Constitution is clear. Again, it does not say anywhere in the Constitution that a President, Democratic or Republican, has free rein in the selection of his or her Cabinet. That is exactly what the Founders did not want. They wanted the President, and I will quote Alexander Hamilton again, to ``submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body.'' And that body is the Senate.

It also doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution that the only reason for a Senator to vote no on a Presidential nominee is because of some personal or legal impediment of that nominee. It leaves the door open. Senators have to ponder each and every one of these nominations. It is very rare that I step forward to oppose one. I have opposed just a couple. I have approved hundreds.

Let me be clear. I will never be deterred--and I know my colleagues feel the same, I believe, on both sides of the aisle--I will never be deterred from doing a job the Constitution requires of me or it would be wrong to have taken the oath and raise my right hand to God and swear to uphold the Constitution if I did not take this role seriously.

I make a special comment to the White House Chief of Staff, who called Members of the Senate petty for seeking time to speak out on this particular nomination. It is important to know that the White House Chief of Staff does a great job for the President, but he does not run the Senate. I know he finds the constitutional requirement of advice and consent perhaps a nuisance, and others have as well in the White House, be they Republicans or Democrats. It is the system of government we have inherited from our Founders. As we go around the world, hoping to bring freedom and liberty to people, we better make sure we get it right here. This is very important, whether it is fair and free elections that really work so people do not stand in line for 10 hours and wait until 4 in the morning to vote, that we fix that, and that we, in fact, act as a check and balance in these nominations.

I have been motivated by a lot of people in my life. One of them is Martin Luther King. I wish to share something he said which is not as widely quoted as other things. He said that our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. That is important for everyone to take to heart. Sometimes it is easier to be silent, to just go along, even if in your heart you know there are certain issues that have to be put out on the table. But the fact is, our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.

Why does this nomination matter so much to me and to my constituents and to the tens of thousands who signed a petition that they sent to me? It is because we are looking at a Secretary of State nomination in a time of war, someone who is very loyal to this President. And, of course, the President picked someone loyal to him. I do not fault him for that in any way, shape, or form. But what matters is this war. A very strong majority of Americans are worried about this war, and they are worried about what comes next.

So, yes, it matters, and it is our job to look at these nominees very seriously. I think it would be terribly condescending to have someone of the caliber of Dr. Rice, with all her intelligence and qualifications and her record of public service with this administration, and not ask the tough questions. That would be condescending. That would be wrong.

Now, I am so honored to serve on the Foreign Relations Committee with the Senator from Virginia, who just made a very eloquent talk. I know he would join me in saying that Richard Lugar is one of the fairest chairmen with whom we have ever served. He allowed members on both sides of the aisle to ask any questions they wanted. He supported our right to do so. To me, Richard Lugar is a model chairman. And I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who asked very important questions of this nominee on everything from exit strategy in Iraq, to issues surrounding the torture question, to policies in Latin America, to tsunami relief. All of these colleagues from both sides of the aisle asked very important questions. As for me, I had five areas of questioning, and I want to lay them out briefly for the Senate.

Now, one more point as to why I believed it was so important to ask Dr. Rice these questions. I think everyone remembers when Dr. Rice went on television and talked about the mushroom cloud that we could get courtesy of Saddam Hussein--an evil tyrant, absolutely. In my opinion, as I said in the committee, he ought to rot. So let's not get confused on that point. I do not know any American who feels any differently. The question is, How many people had to die? That is an important question. How many people had to be wounded? That is an important question.

Let me tell you, 1,368 soldiers are dead, as of the latest numbers that we got this morning from the Department of Defense, and 10,502 wounded. My understanding is that about a third of them may well come home in tremendous need of mental health counseling to try to help them cope with the horrors they have seen, those brave, incredible soldiers. As I said in the committee, and I say it again on the floor of the Senate, not one of them died in vain. Not one of them got injured in vain because when your Commander in Chief sends you to fight in a war, it is the most noble of things to do that. And they have done that.

President Bush, in his inaugural address, talked about bringing freedom to countries that do not have it. He did not specify how. Now, the nongovernmental organization, Freedom House, estimates there are 49 countries in the world that are not free. The group believes there are another 54 countries that are considered only partly free. I worry about sending more troops on military missions based on hyped up rhetoric. That is why these questions are so important.

So the first set of questions that I posed to Dr. Rice had to do with her comments about Saddam's nuclear program. On July 30, 2003, Dr. Rice was asked by PBS NewsHour's Gwen Ifill if she continued to stand by the claims made about Saddam's nuclear program in the days and months leading up to the war.

In what appears to be an effort to downplay the nuclear weapons scare tactics, she said:

It was a case that said he is trying to reconstitute. He's

trying to acquire nuclear weapons.

And then she says:

Nobody ever said that it was going to be the next year. . .

.

Well, that was false, because 9 months before that, this is what the President said:

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an

amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a

single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than

a year.

So she tells the American people nobody ever said he would have a weapon within a year, when in fact the President himself made that comment.

Then, later, a year after she said nobody has ever said this, she herself says it:

. . . the intelligence assessment was that he was

reconstituting his nuclear programs;

that, left unchecked, he would have a nuclear weapon by the

end of the year. . . .

That is what she says to Fox News.

So first she says nobody ever said it. We showed her the fact that the President did. And then she contradicts herself. She contradicts the President and then she contradicts herself.

Now, this is very troubling. I wanted to give her a chance to correct the record. Did Dr. Rice correct the record? Let me tell you what she said. She had two responses. First she said to this committee, my committee:

The fact is that we did face a very difficult intelligence

challenge in trying to understand what Saddam Hussein had in

terms of weapons of mass destruction.

Notice she does not mention the word ``nuclear weapons.'' And she says: We had a very difficult challenge. But that is a contradiction because on July 31, 2003, this is what she told a German TV station:

Going into the war against Iraq, we had very strong

intelligence. I've been in this business for 20 years. And

some of the strongest intelligence cases that I've seen. . .

. We had very strong intelligence going in.

So she tells the committee: We faced a difficult intelligence challenge--when she had told a German TV station: It was the best intelligence we ever had. This is contradictory, plus she never ever addresses the issue that we asked her about. Why did you contradict the President and why did she contradict herself?

Then she had a second response. She pointed to the Duelfer report and cited it but failed to tell the whole story where the Duelfer report said:

Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear program in 1991 following

the Gulf War.

There you go. She never said that. She never cited that. She cited other quotes from the Duelfer report.

So her answers to the questions I asked her, saying once that Saddam would not have a weapon within a year, and another to me saying he would, her answers are completely nonresponsive to the question and raise more credibility lapses.

Then we have another area of aluminum tubes. On September 8, 2002, Dr. Rice was on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer and made this statement:

We do know that there have been shipments going . . . into

Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only

suited to . . . nuclear weapons programs. . . .

And then President Bush repeated the same thing:

Our intelligence sources tell us that (Saddam) has

attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable

for nuclear weapons production.

I pointed out to Dr. Rice that the Department of Energy thought otherwise as far back as April 11, 2001. They said the ``specifications [for the tubes] are not consistent with a gas centrifuge end use. . . .''

On May 9, 2001, they said:

The Intelligence Community's original analysis of these

tubes focused on their possible use in developing gas

centrifuges for the enrichment of uranium. Further

investigation reveals, however, Iraq has purchased similar

aluminum tubes previously to manufacture chambers for a

multiple rocket launcher.

In other words, not suitable for nuclear weapons.

Then in July 2002, Australian intelligence said tube evidence is ``patchy and inconclusive.'' And IAEA said they are ``not directly suitable'' for uranium enrichment and are ``consistent'' with making ordinary artillery rockets.

So we laid this all out there for Dr. Rice, and she refused again to correct the record. She had a chance.

This is what she said at the hearing after she saw all of this:

We didn't go to war because of aluminum tubes.

That is what she said to the committee. Well, if that is the case, why did President Bush cite the aluminum tubes in his speech in which he made the case for the war? He said:

Our intelligence sources tell us that he [Saddam] has

attempted to purchase high strength aluminum tubes suitable

for nuclear weapons production.

So you can't say that the aluminum tubes were not a reason for going to war when the President used it in his speech where he was building support for the war. She doesn't answer the question. She doesn't correct the record. It is very troubling.

The third issue I raised was the matter of linking Saddam to al-Qaida which she did over and over again. I voted for the war against Osama bin Laden. I believed the President when he said we are going to get him dead or alive. I thought we wouldn't stop--we wouldn't turn away-- and that we would not end until we broke the back of al-Qaida.

Well, unfortunately, when we went into Iraq--and this was sold to us in part by Dr. Rice; she viewed that as her job; I think the President gave that job to her--we took our eye off al-Qaida. We took our eye off bin Laden. And the consequences are being seen and felt.

Dr. Rice told the committee that the terrorists ``are on the run.'' The truth is, they are now in 60 countries when before 9/11 they were in 45 countries.

I want to read to you a paragraph that best expresses my views on the impact of the Iraqi war on the war against terrorism. It was written by one of the world's experts on terror, Peter Bergen, 5 months ago:

What we have done in Iraq is what bin Laden could not have

hoped for in his wildest dreams: We invaded an oil-rich

Muslim nation in the heart of the Middle East, the very type

of imperial adventure that bin Laden has long predicted was

the United States' long-term goal in the region. We deposed

the secular socialist Saddam, whom bin Laden long despised,

ignited Sunni and Shia fundamentalist fervor in Iraq, and

have now provoked a ``defensive'' jihad that has galvanized

jihad-minded Muslims around the world. It is hard to imagine

a set of policies better designed to sabotage the war on

terrorism.

This conclusion was supported by the CIA Director's think tank.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an article that describes this recent report that says Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of ``professionalized'' terrorists.

Here is the thing. Dr. Rice told the American people that there were strong ties between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. These are her words:

We clearly know that there were in the past and have been

contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al-

Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time.

And there are some al-Qaeda personnel who found refuge in

Baghdad.

Now, I want to show a map that the State Department put out, and it was accompanied by a letter from President Bush, a month after 9/11. Here is the map. The red indicates where there are al-Qaida cells. Unfortunately, we notice the United States is red. That is why we have to win this war. This is the list where al-Qaida or affiliated groups have operated, and this is a month after 9/11, put out by this administration. No Iraq. So how do you then go on television, look the American people in the eye, and tell them that in fact--and I will go back to her quote again:

We clearly know that there were in the past and have been

contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al-

Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time.

And there are some al-Qaeda personnel who found refuge in

Baghdad.

She did not tell the full story there, and I gave her a chance to do it.

It is really troubling to me. After all this time, these are the things she could have said: I never checked out that map. You are right, Senator, there were no al-Qaida there. But she didn't do that. She could have listened to what the experts were saying about how bin Laden loathed Saddam Hussein, two despicable tyrants who hated each other.

Peter Bergen said:

. . . I met bin Laden in '97 and . . . asked him at the end

of the interview . . . his opinion of Saddam Hussein. And

[bin Laden] said, ``Well, Saddam is a bad Muslim and he took

Kuwait for his own self-aggrandizement.''

In November 2001, the former head of the Saudi intelligence said:

Iraq doesn't come very high in the estimation of Osama bin

Laden. . . .He thinks of [Saddam Hussein] as an apostate, an

infidel, or someone who is not worthy of being a fellow

Muslim.

Then the bipartisan 9/11 Commission says there is ``no collaborative'' relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida, and Dr. Rice received that memo on September 18, 2001, and still she went before the American people. When I asked her about it, she said:

As to the question of al Qaeda and its presence in Iraq, I

think we did say that there was never an issue of operational

control . . . that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11

as far as we know or could tell.

It wasn't a question of operational alliance. It was a

question of an attitude about terrorism that allowed Zarqawi

to be in Baghdad and to operate out of Baghdad.

Well, those statements continued to mislead. There is no question about it. When she says there wasn't an operational alliance and she believed there never was, why was it that aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, when President Bush had that famous sign ``mission accomplished,'' he said:

The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign

against terror. We have removed an ally of al Qaeda.

How do you tell the committee that this administration never thought there was an operational link, when the President, standing on the USS Abraham Lincoln, was saying mission accomplished, and the major fighting is behind us?

He said:

In the war against Saddam, we have removed an ally of al

Qaeda.

It isn't right to continue this kind of talk when you already know from the 9/11 Commission that it isn't true, and you know from looking at the State Department that it wasn't true. Yet it all continues.

In her point about allowing Zarqawi to be in Baghdad, she failed to mention a CIA document that was reportedly sent to the White House in September 2004 that states there is no conclusive evidence that Saddam harbored Zarqawi.

Last October, a senior U.S. official told ABC News there was, in fact, no evidence that Saddam even knew Zarqawi was in Baghdad. So we are not being told the whole truth. We are not being given all of the facts. I have to say that I think it is a disservice to the American people.

The fourth issue I raised with Dr. Rice concerns U.S. relations with Iran during the Iraq-Iran war. That sounds like, why would I raise that because that war was in the 1980s? It is important because, in making her case for the war in Iraq, Dr. Rice cited Saddam's deplorable use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war. It certainly was a sin against humanity. She failed to mention, however, that it was Special Envoy Donald Rumsfeld--here he is in this picture--in December 1983 who met with Saddam 1 month after the United States confirmed he was using chemical weapons almost daily against Iran. In an attempt to support Iraq during that war, Iraq was removed from the terrorism list in 1982. None other than Donald Rumsfeld was giving the good news to Saddam Hussein and tried to restore full diplomatic relations. As a matter of fact, during this whole Iran-Iraq war, we all know the story that American firms were selling materials to Saddam Hussein.

Now, this is what Dr. Rice said. She said:

I will say it right now. The U.S. Government has often, as

the President said, supported regimes in the hope that they

would bring stability. We have been in the Middle East

sometimes blind to the freedom deficit. We are not going to

do that anymore. What happened with Saddam is probably

evidence that that policy was not a very wise policy.

That is an understatement. It was a horrific policy. It was a terrible policy. It was a policy of appeasing Saddam Hussein, making sure that he had the weapons, because we were essentially taking his side quietly in the Iran-Iraq war, and Donald Rumsfeld was super involved in it, and here is the picture to prove it.

Now, I do appreciate that Dr. Rice said it probably was not a very wise policy. I was glad to hear her say that. But you know what. She doesn't explain to us why. When she cited Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran as a justification for the U.S. attack on Iraq, she doesn't mention that the U.S. Government was working at that very same time to reestablish robust relations with Saddam. Indeed, our own Government took Saddam off the terror list, and the American people deserve to know that from her, when she advanced this issue as a reason for the war. Full disclosure. Give the whole story.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, I raise the issue of Dr. Rice's opposition to a provision in the intelligence reform bill that would have outlawed the use of cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment of foreign prisoners by intelligence officials. The section of this provision is here. It was passed unanimously by the Senate. The overall amendment was written by Senators McCain and Lieberman, but this particular provision was written by Senator Durbin:

Prohibition on torture or cruel, inhumane, or degrading

treatment or punishment.

In general, no prisoner shall be subject to torture or

cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment that is

prohibited by the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the

United States.

That is very straightforward. When I asked Dr. Rice, why did you sign a letter with Mr. Bolton and object to this provision and ask that it be stricken, she had a couple of different responses. The first response she gave me was:

This is duplicative of language that was in the Defense

Department bill.

So I checked with the authors of this provision, and I said: Is it true that this is duplicative? They said the language is in the Department of Defense, but it does not apply to the CIA and intelligence officers who work outside of the DOD. So I explained it to her, and she argued with me and she said it is not true, it is duplicative. I said: Do you think Senators McCain, Lieberman, and Durbin don't know what they are doing when they added this to the intelligence bill? She didn't answer. The fact is, this is not duplicative. This is necessary so that we cover those intelligence officials who may not be part of the Department of Defense but are part of other agencies not covered by the Department of Defense.

And then she went on and said:

We did not want to afford to people who did not--shouldn't

enjoy certain protections those protections. And the Geneva

Conventions should not apply to terrorists like al-Qaida.

They can't or you will stretch the meaning of the Geneva

Convention.

That was her second problem with it, which was that you are granting more rights than the Geneva Conventions. However, this explanation makes no sense because the following language was also part of this, which is:

Nothing in this section shall affect the status of any

person under the Geneva Conventions or whether any person is

entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

So she gave two reasons as to why she wrote a letter and demanded this be removed from the intelligence bill, neither of which is true. It is not duplicative, and there is no problem with the Geneva Conventions because we make a special exception for them.

But that is not all. The next day, Dr. Rice came back and changed what she said the day before. She said she doesn't oppose the subsection that clearly prohibited torture and cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment. She said she opposes other provisions in the section.

Well, Mr. President, this was the operative language of the section. That second day's excuse just doesn't hold up under scrutiny because she wrote in a letter--this is what Dr. Rice wrote to the committee.

This says:

The administration also opposes [she names the section]

which provides legal protections to foreign prisoners to

which they are not now entitled under applicable law and

policy.

And she says that section 1095 of the Defense Authorization Act already addresses this issue. So Dr. Rice's own words in the letter contradict what she told the committee.

Now, this issue of torture is one that matters. It matters to me for many reasons. The first is it is about our humanity. It is about our humanity. Second is that it is about our soldiers, who may find themselves in captivity and in a circumstance where they might well get treated the way we are treating people we capture. That is why the protective words here and living up to our treaties or obligations of our Constitution and international treaties are so important. It is not some vague academic discussion; it is very serious.

Now, I went and saw, as many colleagues did, the pictures from Abu Ghraib prison. As long as I live, they will be seared in my memory. There are a lot more pictures that the public didn't see. I can tell you--and I think I can say this of most of my colleagues I was sitting with from both sides of the aisle--I could barely watch what was shown.

I am sometimes torn to talk about what I saw. I have done it in small groups where my constituents have asked me what I saw, but I will not do it today. I do not want to do it, but let it be said that the kinds of pictures that I saw do not reflect our country or our values. We have to be united on this.

Senator Dodd asked Dr. Rice to please tell us her personal views on torture, and he laid out a couple of examples of torture. She demurred and would not respond to those specific questions. I thought that was a moment in time where she could have sent out a signal to the whole world about America. She said for sure that Abu Ghraib was terrible. She was eloquent on the point. In fact, I will read to my colleagues what she said right after Abu Ghraib:

What took place at the Abu Ghraib prison does not represent

America. Our nation is a compassionate country that believes

in freedom. The U.S. government is deeply sorry for what has

happened to some Abu Ghraib prisoners and people worldwide

should be assured that President Bush is determined to learn

the full truth of the prisoner reports in Iraq.

Those comments at that time were very important. They were the type of comments that I think pull us all together. It was a comment that reflected humanity.

Then we have this language that she writes a couple of months after she makes this beautiful speech in October saying she opposes this provision that says no prisoner shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. She writes a letter opposing this section after she makes this beautiful speech.

When I asked her to explain it, she gives me reasons that just do not hold up, that it is duplicative, which it is not, that she really did not oppose it, which cannot possibly be true because we have her letter in writing where she did.

There is no doubt that Dr. Rice has the resume, the story, the intelligence, and the experience to be Secretary of State. She certainly is loyal to this President, we know that, and I think that is important. The President wants to have someone who is loyal. He should also want to have someone who will be independent such as Colin Powell was.

After 9 hours of grueling questions and answers before the committee, she proved her endurance for the job. In responding to me, she used a very clever tactic that we all learn in politics, which is to go after the questioner, why are you attacking me, and then do not answer the questions. It was OK that she did that. I did not mind that she did that. But she did not answer the questions. That is the point.

I believe the committee gave Dr. Rice the opportunity to speak candidly and set the record straight. It is not only my questions. Senator Biden asked her how many Iraqi security forces were trained, and without blinking an eye she said 120,000. And he said, wait a minute--and anyone who knows Senator Biden knows that he kind of roots for someone when they sit in the hot seat--let us really be candid here. He said: I went to Iraq and I was told by the military that there is nothing close to 120,000. He said he was told there were 4,000. She stuck by the 120,000.

Later, when others were asked in the administration, such as Ambassador Negroponte, he would not put out a number but he sure did not say 120,000.

Everyone with a heart and a pulse knows it is not 120,000 trained troops, because as Senator Biden said at that hearing, if there are 120,000 trained Iraqi troops to protect the Iraqi people, why in God's name are we there in the numbers we are and keeping people there, who are leaving their families, for extra tours of duty? She would not budge.

I am troubled because we gave Dr. Rice every opportunity to speak candidly, set the record straight, and she just did not do that.

In her role as National Security Adviser, she was not responsible for coming to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee or the House equivalent committee. Now she is going to be responsible for that. She could not have

a friendlier chairman than Senator Lugar in terms of being given every opportunity to work with our committee. I know Senator Biden and Senator Lugar work together just like brothers. This is a very bipartisan committee. We are going to see Dr. Rice there very often because she will be confirmed. I hope when she comes back before the committee that she will be more candid with the committee.

At this time I am judging her on her answers to these questions. She dodged so many of them and again resorted to half the story and even got herself in deeper water in some of her responses. So I cannot support this nomination.

The cost of the policy in Iraq, a policy that she embraced wholeheartedly, a policy that she did, in fact, bring to the American people and she led them to certain conclusions that turned out not to be true, whether it was the aluminum tubes, the ties to al-Qaida, whether it was her half argument on the Iran-Iraq war, whether it was her obvious contradictory statements on we never said he would have a nuclear weapon in a year one day and then the next year she said we did not say that, it is too hard to overlook these things.

I will close with the Martin Luther King quote, which I will not recite exactly but I do agree that our lives begin to end when we stop caring about things that matter. Accountability matters. Truth telling matters. The whole truth matters. Responsibility matters. The advice and consent role of the Senate is one that is really very important. I hope my colleagues on both sides will recognize that this Senate is at its best when we have some of these tough debates.

It is not as if we are having a vote to confirm a Cabinet position that will not have as much reach. It is not as if we are voting to confirm a position where the individual is brand new and does not have a record. This is a very important position in a time of war where the nominee had a record of making many statements to the American people. I believe that out of respect for the American people, out of respect for the Senate, out of respect for the Foreign Relations Committee, and out of respect to Condoleezza Rice herself, we needed to ask these questions.

Now that he is on the floor again, I would say to Senator Lugar what I said before, that he is such a fair chairman. All of us on the committee have such respect for him. I look forward to working with him on many issues. I think there will be many times where we will be voting the same way. We will not be today, but that is just one time. There will be many other occasions where we will be together.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize the 75th anniversary of the Jewish Federation of Silicon Valley.

In 1930, the Jewish Federation of Silicon Valley, JFSV, was incorporated into the national Jewish Federation system to promote philanthropic and humanitarian activities in Santa Clara County. For 75 years, JFSV has served as a focal point for the Jewish community in Silicon Valley. With a membership of over 13,000, the JFSV is committed to preservation and enrichment of Jewish culture, and to expressing Jewish community concerns about Jewish life in Santa Clara County, the United States, Israel and throughout the world.

Over the past 75 years, JFSV has expanded greatly, and now offers a wide variety of programs to its members. The Silicon Valley Young Adults Division offers educational and social programs to members ages 25-40. The Women's Philanthropy Division focuses on community-building, educational, social, and cultural enrichment for women, while offering great networking opportunities to women members. Blue Knot, the Jewish Technology Initiative, creates opportunities for Jewish professionals in the technology sector to exchange ideas and expand networks.

JFSV is based on the caring philosophies of Klal Yisrael, the responsibility of each Jew for another, and Tikun Olam, repairing the world through social action. JFSV has mentored many members who have dedicated themselves to community service in Silicon Valley and the Greater Bay Area. Through its outreach, JFSV has successfully enhanced social and civic participation in the Silicon Valley community.

The Jewish Federation of Silicon Valley's service to the Jewish community, both in Santa Clara County and nationwide, is truly inspiring. I congratulate the Jewish Federation of Silicon Valley on their 75th anniversary and wish them another 75 years of success.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the outstanding accomplishments of the University of Southern California football team. Earlier this month, the Trojans completed a perfect season by winning the Orange Bowl and their second consecutive national championship.

Last year, USC shared the championship after being excluded from the Bowl Championship Series title game.

This year, there was no doubt. The Trojans won all 13 of their games and led both the Associated Press and the USA Today/ESPN coaches polls from the preseason through the bowl games.

On Tuesday, January 4, they ended the season with a bang. In a much- anticipated meeting with second-ranked Oklahoma, the Trojans overwhelmed the Sooners by a score of 55-19 to win the Orange Bowl and the national championship in utterly convincing fashion.

I would like to congratulate USC President Steven B. Sample, Head Coach Pete Carroll, and the Trojan football team for an unforgettable season.

Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to name the courthouse in Sacramento, California, as the ``Robert T. Matsui United States Courthouse.'' I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Feinstein and Durbin.

Congressman Matsui's death on January 1, 2005 was shocking to all of us. Naming the Federal Courthouse in Sacramento in his honor would be a very appropriate memorial to his continual efforts toward a just and fair society.

After his childhood internment, Bob Matsui could have chosen to dwell on the sadness of his early years. Instead, he chose to give his life to public service, working to improve the lives of those in his congressional district and all Americans. He was a true patriot.

He was first elected to Congress in 1978, and spent the past 26 years representing the citizens of Sacramento with distinction and pride. He served as a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and took a particular interest in complex public policy issues including tax, international trade, social security, healthcare, and welfare reform.

Congressman Matsui's dedication to the well-being of America's children earned him the Congressional Advocate of the Year award from The Child Welfare League of America in 1992 and 1994. The Congressman was also honored with the Anti Defamation League's Lifetime Achievement Award for his commitment to human rights.

Included in Congressman Matsui's long list of legislative achievements were his accomplishments to benefit the people of his district including flood control, transportation, and his success in obtaining $142 million in federal funding for the courthouse in Sacramento.

A graduate of the University of California at Berkeley and Hastings College of Law, he founded his own law practice in 1967, and was elected to the Sacramento City Council in 1971. After winning reelection in 1975 he became vice mayor of Sacramento in 1977. Congressman Matsui is survived by his wife, Doris Matsui, their son Brian and his wife Amy, and granddaughter, Anna.

Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today that will protect hundreds of thousands of acres of wilderness in Northern California. The Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act would designate over 300,000 acres in 14 areas as wilderness and would protect 21 miles of the Black Butte Creek as wild and scenic. The Senate passed this legislation during the 108th Congress, and I am hopeful this year that the bill will become law.

California's natural treasures have always been one of the things that make California unique, drawing millions of people to them over the years to revel in their wild beauty. But that beauty must not be taken for granted. It is important that we move now to designate these special places in California as wilderness to protect them for the enjoyment of future generations.

That is why I introduced the statewide California Wild Heritage Act during the 107th Congress and the 108th Congress, and I will soon be reintroducing it. The California Wild Heritage Act would protect more than 2.5 million acres of public land throughout the state of California, as well as the free-flowing portions of 23 rivers. Every acre of wild land is a treasure, but the areas protected in this bill are some of California's most precious.

I am pleased to join Representative Mike Thompson of California in introducing this legislation, which protect those portions of my statewide bill that are located in California's First Congressional District. The areas protected under this legislation are some of the most magnificent wild places in our state. For example, in southwestern Humboldt and northwestern Mendocino counties, over 42,000 acres of the King Range will be protected as wilderness. This is the wildest portion of the California coast, boasting the longest stretch of undeveloped coastline in the United States outside of Alaska.

This bill will protect watersheds that provide clean water to our cities and farms. This bill would also protect the precious plant and animal species that make their homes in these areas. Endangered and threatened species whose habitats will be protected by this bill include the bald eagle, California brown pelican, steelhead trout, coho salmon, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, northern spotted owl, and Roosevelt elk.

During the last 20 years, 675,000 acres of unprotected wilderness lost their wilderness character due to activities such as logging and mining. As our population increases, and California becomes home to almost 50 million people by the middle of the century, development pressures threaten our remaining wild places. We must protect our precious wild lands and wild rivers before they are lost forever.

Mr. President, those of us who live in the United States have a very special responsibility to protect our natural heritage. With this legislation, we are one step closer to protecting this legacy for our children's children, and their children.

Mr. President, thank you so much.

For most of us in the House and in the Senate, we have spent our lives fighting for what we believe in, always fighting to make our Nation better. We may not agree from time to time, but we are always fighting to make our Nation better. We have fought for social justice. We have fought for economic justice. We have fought for environmental justice. We have fought for criminal justice. Now we must add a new fight: the fight for electoral justice.

Every citizen of this the greatest country in the world who is registered to vote should be guaranteed that their vote matters, that their vote is counted, and that in the voting booth in their community their vote has as much weight as any Senator, any Congressperson, any President, any Cabinet member, or any CEO of any Fortune 500 corporation. I am sure every one of my colleagues agrees with that statement, that in the voting booth everyone is equal. So now it seems to me that under our great Constitution of the United States of America, which we swear allegiance to uphold, which guarantees the right to vote, we must ask certain questions.

First, why did voters in Ohio wait hours in the rain to vote? Why were voters at Kenyan College, for example, made to wait in line until 4 a.m. to vote? It was because there were only 2 machines for 1,300 voters when they needed 13.

Why did voters in poor and predominantly African- American communities have disproportionately long waits?

Why in Franklin County did election officials use only 2,798 machines when they needed 5,000? Why did they hold back 68 machines in warehouses, 68 machines that were in working order? Why were 42 of those machines in predominantly African-American communities?

Why in the Columbus area alone did an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 voters leave polling places out of frustration without having voted? How many more never bothered to vote after they heard this because they had to take care of their families or they had a job or they were sick or their legs ached after waiting for hours?

Why is it when 638 people voted at a precinct in Franklin County, a voting machine awarded 4,258 extra votes to George Bush? Thankfully, they fixed it. Only 638 people had shown up, but George Bush got more than 4,000 votes. How could that happen?

Why did Franklin County officials reduce the number of electronic voting machines to downtown precincts while adding them in the suburbs? This also led to long lines.

In Cleveland, why were there thousands of provisional ballots disqualified when everyone knew that poll workers had given faulty instructions to the voters?

Because of this and voting irregularities in so many other places, I am joining today with Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones, a 10-year judge, an 8-year prosecutor, a 6-year Member of Congress, a woman inducted into the Women's Hall of Fame. Folks, she has great credibility, and she asked just one Senator to take a couple of

hours. I hate inconveniencing my friends, but I believe it is worth a couple of hours to shine some light on these issues.

We passed the Help America Vote Act, which was important to help American voters, but then we did nothing.

Senators Graham, Clinton, and I introduced a bill to ensure that a paper trail go along with electronic voting. We couldn't even get a hearing in the last Congress. In the House, it is the same problem. We need this kind of bill.

Let me simply say to my colleagues: I have great respect for all of you. But I think it is key, whether it is Republicans or Democrats, that we understand that the centerpiece of this country is democracy, and the centerpiece of democracy is ensuring the right to vote.

I ask you, my friends from both sides of the aisle, when we get busy working within the next few weeks, let us not turn away from the things that happened in Ohio. Our people are dying all over the world. A lot of them are from my State. For what reason? To bring democracy to the far corners of the globe. Let us fix it here, and let us do it the first thing out.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as we begin a new year and a new Congress, more than 1.2 million Rotarians in 166 countries are beginning the centennial celebration of Rotary International.

On February 23, 1905, the Rotary Club of Chicago was formed by Paul P. Harris, an attorney who wanted to recapture the friendly spirit of small-town America in a big-city professional club. The new group took its name from the practice of rotating club meetings among members' offices.

Rotary quickly grew, with clubs forming across the country and around the world. At the same time, the organization's interests expanded from social and professional interests to community service.

Along with public service, Rotary has given the world a high standard of ethics known as the 4-Way Test. This test asks the following four questions of the things we think, say, or do:

1. Is it the truth?

2. Is it fair to all concerned?

3. Will it build goodwill and better friendships?

4. Will it be beneficial to all concerned?

During and after World War II, Rotary International became deeply involved in efforts to promote global peace and understanding. Rotary members actively supported the founding of the United Nations and helped to establish UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.

In recent years, Rotary International has helped communities around the world to address some of the critical needs of our day, including disease, hunger, illiteracy, environmental degradation, and children at risk. Rotary has been the lead organization in PolioPlus, a global effort to immunize all the world's children against polio.

On the occasion of the Rotary Centennial, I send my sincere appreciation and best wishes to Rotary International and Rotarians everywhere.

Mr. President, I am pleased to have this opportunity to vote in support of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. Passage of this conference report today is an important step forward in defending our country against the new threats that face us.

While I expect that the overwhelming majority of the Senate will vote in favor of the conference report today, it has not been an easy road to this point. The Bush administration fought tooth and nail against creating an independent commission to investigate the Government's failings leading to the tragic day of September 11, 2001. And, once the 9/11 Commission was established, the President's record of cooperation was spotty, at best. But largely because of the brave efforts and persistence of those families who lost loved ones on 9/11, these obstacles were overcome and the important recommendations made by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission will be enacted into law.

The 9/11 Commission, led by co chairs Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, did this country a great service by conducting a thorough investigation of the events leading up to September 11, 2001. The report issued in July contained more than 40 important recommendations that will make us a stronger nation as we work to confront the dangers of global terrorism. Through the hard work of Senator Collins, Senator Lieberman and others, these recommendations were incorporated into bipartisan legislation that easily passed the Senate. And although the House of Representatives did not take the same bipartisan approach, the final negotiated conference report is a good bill that will improve our ability to fight terrorism in several ways.

First, the bill creates a new Director of National Intelligence to serve as the head of all 15 intelligence agencies and control their budgets. This person would be accountable to Congress, the President, and the American people in implementing the National Intelligence Program.

Second, the bill requires the President to create a new information sharing environment. The 9/11 Commission found that our ability to defeat terrorism is severely hampered because government agencies are resistant to sharing information. This provision will ensure that information about terrorists is shared not only among Federal agencies, but also between Federal, State and local agencies.

Third, the bill creates a new National counterterrorism Center to plan and coordinate counterterrorism missions and a new National Counterproliferation Center to improve the Government's ability to halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Fourth, the bill increases the number of border guards and immigration agents while also improving surveillance capabilities along the southwest border.

Finally, the bill improves security for our aviation system, including additional funds for Federal air marshals. And while I am pleased that conferees took note of my concern about protecting the anonymity of Federal air marshals, I do not believe the final provision is strong enough.

Clearly, this bill cannot be the last piece of legislation we pass to make us safer. There is much more work to be done to protect our ports, our nuclear and chemical plants, and the flying public. Our first responders need far more attention so they have the interoperable communications systems they need, and an adequate number of personnel to protect our streets at all times and for whatever reason. I also believe that we are moving far too slowly on developing countermeasures to protect commercial aircraft against the threat of shoulder fired missiles. I will press hard for action on all of these issues so that we do not simply return to business as usual.

America will never forget the tragedy that took place on September 11, 2001. We are a changed Nation because of it. The families of those who lost their lives that day have done tremendous work in fighting for this bill. That is why I am pleased we are passing this bill today. The Federal Government must do everything it can to prevent another attack and today's vote is a step in the right direction.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to 66 young Americans who have been killed in Iraq since October 7. All of them were from California or were based in California.

SPC Morgen N. Jacobs, age 20, died October 7 in Tikrit, of injuries sustained in Aaliyah on October 6, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his patrol vehicle. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division, Schweinfurt, Germany. He was from Santa Cruz, CA.

PFC First Class Andrew Halverson, age 19, died October 9 as result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province. He was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA.

CPL Ian T. Zook, age 24, died October 12 as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, CA.

PFC Oscar A. Martinez, age 19, died October 12 as result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province. He was assigned to I Marine Expeditionary Force Headquarters Group, Camp Pendleton, CA.

Lance CPL Victor A. Gonzalez, age 19, was killed in action October 13 from an explosion while conducting combat operations in the Al Anbar Province. He was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA. He was from Watsonville, CA.

2LT Lt. Paul M. Felsbert, age 27, died October 13 as result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province. He was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA.

MAJ Charles R. Soltes, Jr., age 36, died October 13 in Mosul when an improvised explosive device detonated near his convoy vehicle. He was assigned to the Army Reserve's 426th Civil Affairs Battalion, Upland, CA. He was from Irvine, CA.

PVT David L. Waters, age 19, died October 14 in Baghdad when an improvised explosive device detonated near his convoy vehicle. He was assigned to the Army's 2nd Battalion, 14th Infantry Regiment, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Fort Drum, NY. He was from Auburn,

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize Harrison Lim, the founder and executive director of Charity Cultural Services, who is retiring after 21 years of dedicated service to the community.

Mr. Lim emigrated from China to San Francisco over 30 years ago. Upon his arrival in America, he struggled with the difficulties of learning a new language and assimilating into a new culture. As he worked hard to establish himself in his new country, Mr. Lim noticed that there were other immigrants who faced similar situations. Seeing the struggles of immigrants, Mr. Lim dedicated his life to making sure that new immigrants had resources available to them to ease the transition of immigration.

To achieve this goal, Mr. Lim founded and established Charity Cultural Services Center, CCSC, in 1983. Located in the heart of San Francisco's Chinatown, CCSC aimed to provide essential services to new Asian American immigrants and their families. Today, CCSC successfully assists over 4,000 people

each year by offering a variety of services, from employment-training for adults, apprenticeship programs, and English-as-a-Second-Language classes to school-based academic support services and other activities for youth. Working with local government, businesses, and educational institutions, CCSC's programs result in the ability of new immigrants to improve their quality of life and provide them with a greater chance at equal opportunities. In 1990, seeing a similar need by Asian American immigrants in Silicon Valley, Mr. Lim worked successfully with the Silicon Valley community to establish a Silicon Valley chapter of Charity Cultural Services Center, the Silicon Valley Crosscultural Community Services Center.

In addition to his work at CCSC, Mr. Lim has also been involved with other community-based organizations in San Francisco. He has served as the President of the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association and also sits on the Chinatown Economic Development Committee.

Mr. Lim has tirelessly strived to address the issues and meet the needs of new immigrants and their families who find themselves living in two different cultures. Through CCSC, he has enriched the community by helping its residents develop positive identities, build confidence in their capabilities, and become active members of society.

Harrison Lim is an invaluable asset to the Bay Area's Asian American community. I commend him for his dedication, hard work and many achievements, and wish him well in his future endeavors. I am sure that, even in his retirement, he will continue to serve as an advocate for the Bay Area's Asian American immigrants. He is the kind of person who makes my state and our country a better place.