Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Richard Ferguson be allowed floor privileges during the consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act. He is a Defense fellow for Senator Harry Reid.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Dayton, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to Mike Powers, a fellow in his office, for the duration of the floor debate on the bill.

Madam President, that certainly is fine with me. I always welcome the opportunity to hear from our colleagues. I understand there are a number of amendments on the side of the Senator from Virginia that may be ready to go this afternoon. We believe we have one that will be ready at 4:30.

If the Senator will yield, I say to the Senator from Maine I will be very brief because the Senator is waiting, but I want to comment on the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from Georgia.

First, I commend him for offering this amendment. It is a very fair amendment. It is a very balanced amendment. It takes on a very important subject and deals with it very forthrightly, which is the fact that our Reserve Forces are called upon more and more now and are put under greater demands, and there is a lot of pressure and a lot of stress now.

We do not require our Active-Duty Forces to wait until they are 60. After they get their 20 years in, they are eligible for retirement. What the amendment of the Senator does, as I understand it, is to credit the Reserve personnel for 90 days of mobilized active-duty service toward--it allows them to gain 3 months reduction from the current requirement that they be 60 years of age.

It is a very important amendment. It addresses an inequity that we have, which is we require our Reserve Forces, even after they have been mobilized, even if they are mobilized year after year, not to get any credit for that active-duty service the way our regulars do.

I commend the Senator. It is a very fair amendment. It has a lesser cost than the one that was opposed by the Department of Defense last year. I hope the Department of Defense will not oppose the Senator's amendment. We have not received a statement from the Department of Defense yet, but I hope, even though they opposed the amendment last year, they will not oppose the amendment of the Senator from Georgia.

It is a worthy amendment. It has bipartisan support. As I understand, in addition to his colleague from Georgia, Senators Landrieu and Pryor are cosponsors. We very much support his effort.

I, too, must reluctantly oppose this amendment. I have come through significant base closings in my State and am going through them right now. I know exactly what the Senator from Maine is referring to.

There are many occasions when land needs to be granted to a local economic redevelopment authority at no cost. There are many cases like that, but there are other uses that have to come first that she would not allow for, including such things as parks or schools, conveyances for those public purposes which it seems to me must come first if we are using Federal property and deciding what to do with Federal property. In terms of the priority list, it seems to me public purposes such as parks and schools should have priority over the economic redevelopment, as desirable as that can be.

But there is another problem with that amendment, and that is it does not provide discretion. It makes it mandatory that the land always go free to a local reuse even though that land may have tremendous value and the proceeds we have been able to obtain, which are not great, nonetheless have been there to help us clean up property which we want to turn over to local governments. We have huge cleanup costs. We have been able to obtain money for the resale of land. That money has gone into the cleanup of these bases before they are turned back to the local authority.

I have nothing but understanding for the Senator from Maine in the situation she and her State face. We have a number of facilities which have been realigned in my home State which have value. In one case, we have a property where a buyer is willing to purchase it if we could get the military to negotiate with that purchaser. That would be money which would come to the Federal Treasury. The buyer is willing to pay to the Federal Treasury. Instead, the Air Force prefers to auction the property. The question is whether, under all the circumstances that exist, it is fairer to auction that property or to negotiate with a private buyer with whom the Government had long been negotiating.

Without getting into that issue as to which is fairer--an auction or a negotiated sale--neither one of them would be permitted under the amendment of the Senator from Maine. It would have to go for nothing to somebody even though you have a buyer out there who wants to pay for it. We should not take such an absolute position on the disposition of these properties. There will be occasions--and I happen to agree with the Senator from Maine--where property should be turned over to a local development or redevelopment authority for free. That is true. But there are also occasions where the property has tremendous value, where the Government, as our dear friend from Virginia has said, has invested an awful lot of money in this base and where it has great value and where those dollars are needed in the Treasury, in part to pay for the cleanup of

property before it is turned over for any other use. I don't see why we would want to write an absolute rule into the law which says that the property must be given away to a local reuse authority rather than there should be an effort made to obtain fair compensation for it. It does not say that there always must be compensation; it says that there will be an effort to seek fair compensation. There are certain ways of building discretion and flexibility into that.

We have another situation where we have a significant piece of property that will be available as a result of this last round of base closures. This property has immense value. I don't know that we can come close to equating it to the Presidio in San Francisco, but it has, nonetheless, immense value. The question is, What will the military do with this property? It is my belief that the military should keep it because part of the base that was kept open and not realigned needs the property for its own use. But the military may decide it does not need that property. It may decide that property is expendable and can be surplused. Then what?

Under the Senator's amendment, extraordinarily valuable property which any developer would like to get their hands on and pay for it and pay the National Treasury money for must go for nothing to a local redevelopment authority. We cannot get any financial benefit from that land no matter how valuable if it goes to a local redevelopment authority.

That is too rigid. That is too inflexible and deprives the Federal Treasury of desperately needed money, including money for cleanup. We have a huge cleanup bill for these properties. We cannot simply give away the opportunity to recoup some funds for the Federal Treasury from highly valuable land.

I have lost a lot of bases in my home State. All three of our Strategic Air Command bases have been closed. We have lost other facilities, as well. I know firsthand what a complicated process this is. I do know, as the Senator from Maine says, there are occasions when property under all the circumstances should go to a local redevelopment agency without reimbursement to the Government, but there are other occasions when land is extraordinarily valuable and when people are willing to pay for that land where, if it is not going to go for a public use and it will be put up for private redevelopment, there should be some recouping to the National Treasury.

I am afraid this is too rigid, and I cannot support it.

Mr. President, very briefly, on the question of the independent commission, my good friend from Virginia rattled off a bunch of statistics as to how many investigations have taken place, how many hearings have been held, how many witnesses have been interviewed, with something like 12 major investigations. We have had 40 closed hearings, I think he said, 30 open hearings, and 16,000 pages of documents have been obtained.

As I thought was going to happen, those kinds of numbers were going to be utilized. The problem is, they are not particularly relevant to the point which this commission amendment seeks to address, which is there are huge gaps in these investigations. There could be 20 hearings or 50 hearings or 100 hearings, but these investigations have not gotten to 5 major points, such as, What is the role of the intelligence community?

The people who have done the investigating have said they have not gotten to that point, they have not reached that issue. The CIA has not cooperated with them. So we have that huge gap in the investigations that have taken place so far. Are there secret prisons around the world being maintained? What about the ghost detainees? There is not a week that goes by that we are not reading about an issue that relates to the intelligence community, particularly the CIA's role in terms of interrogating detainees. Yet that is an almost complete blank slate.

All of those investigations which have been made, which the Senator from Virginia referred to, have said: Well, we have not gotten into that issue. We were not allowed to get into that issue.

Another major area is the U.S. Government policy on rendition. We have not had any investigation on that.

Another major area is the role of contractors. We have not had any investigation on that.

Another major area is the legality of the interrogation techniques, particularly the two major documents setting forth the techniques which were going to be used, the so-called second Bybee memo and the memo from Mr. Yoo to the Department of Defense general counsel, Mr. Haynes. We have not gotten there. So there has been no investigation of the legality of the interrogation techniques permitted by the Office of Legal Counsel's memos to which I have just referred. And there are a number of outstanding document requests which have been flatout denied relative to what happened at Guantanamo.

Now, it does not make any difference how many hearings have been held--as long as you have those gaps which are greater than the amount covered, you have not had a thorough investigation, or anything close, of detainee abuses and these so-called secret prisons around the world which are allegedly

maintained. That is the point. That is why you need an independent commission. You cannot sweep this under the rug. It is going to pop up again. There is going to be another captain who is going to show up-- and my friend from Virginia met with this captain. This is a letter to Senator McCain from Captain Fishback, who is in a parachute infantry regiment in the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, talking about the way intelligence personnel were used to give directions to soften up detainees. But we have had no investigation of intelligence.

So you have an honorable member of the U.S. military, CPT Ian Fishback. I had a personal conversation with this captain where he described to me what I just said, that there were directions from the intelligence community to soften up detainees. He says:

Instead of resolving my concerns, the approach for

clarification process leaves me deeply troubled.

This is a letter to Senator McCain. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

He sets forth what has happened here in terms of abuses and how it hurts our military. It hurts him. It is not just hurting our honor, it makes their lives more dangerous in case they are ever captured. And he ends by saying:

If we abandon our ideals in the face of adversity and

aggression, then those ideals were never really in our

possession. I would rather die fighting than give up even the

smallest part of the idea that is ``America.''

Now, that is a member of the U.S. military.

We cannot sweep this under the rug. The investigations so far have swept critical issues under the rug. They are going to surface sooner or later. Better to have an independent commission take a look at them, get it away from any partisanship, and have a commission the way the 9/ 11 Commission was appointed, with five Democratic appointees, five Republican appointees, and have the President appoint the chairman of the commission.

But we owe it to the Captain Fishbacks of this world. We owe it to all the men and women who serve so honorably, which is 99 percent, probably 99.9 percent, of our military. We owe it to them to protect them. One way to protect them is to make sure we have a thorough investigation, without these major gaps, as to what went wrong.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. I believe the Senator from Iowa is ready, in case the Senator from Virginia is ready to have his amendment offered.

I thank my good friend from Virginia. What our committee has done is held some hearings. They are important hearings. They are valuable hearings. They have not covered five critical areas. Those areas have to be brought to the surface. As to those areas, I am not saying the chairman or our committee has swept them under the rug. We have allowed those issues to be unaddressed.

I thank my good friend for that clarification. The ``we'' applies to the Congress. We, the Congress, have oversight responsibility. We have not carried it out. There are at least five major areas where we have failed to carry it out. We have to address those

areas. We have been unable to do so. I see no evidence that we will. Therefore, the only way we can do this is with an outside, independent, 9/11-type panel.

But I was not in any way suggesting that any one committee has been the source of this failure. It is all of the Congress together, which, obviously, is in the control of the Republican majority. That is a fact. But, nonetheless, we as a Congress have not carried out the oversight responsibility which our troops deserve.

I hope I have assured my friend.

I did not mean in any way to impugn--

I thank my friend again. I would say of all the committees I know of, our committee, the Armed Services Committee, have carried out their responsibilities better than other committees. I wish to give credit where credit is due--to our chairman. I do not know of any more honorable, decent, hard-working, fair person in this body or any body in which I have ever served.

We have still, overall, as a Congress, failed in five major areas to look at the way in which detainees have been handled. That failure is going to come back to haunt our troops, and it is haunting our Nation right now. But I surely did not mean in any way to single out our committee as being the source of that failure. But we are part of a larger failure in terms of the whole Congress failing to carry out its oversight responsibility.

Now, Mr. President, I wonder if my friend would accept a unanimous consent request that the time we have just taken on this subject be in morning business rather than deducted from the time on this amendment, given the interest in it.

Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 5 minutes provided to Senator Salazar prior to the vote at 5:30.

Would the Senator from Iowa yield 1 minute to me?

That is correct.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Iowa. I support his amendment. It simply would codify provisions in a directive. It puts some force behind what is already supposed to be in regulation, which is that there be fair and balanced political programming for the Armed Forces network radio broadcast. That is what the Harkin amendment does. It does not do the allocation. It does not make a judgment. It simply says we have to put some stronger teeth behind a regulation because we are talking about political programming. We have to be certain that political programming is fair and balanced. That is what the regulation states it is supposed to be already and just simply codifying it means Congress believes that is essential, as well as in addition to that it establishes an ombudsman to make sure the Armed Forces network adheres to its own programming standards and practices. I think that is a fair request, and I support the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wonder if we could get a list of pending amendments made, unless the chairman has already done that, as to what amendments are already pending and how much time is left on those amendments.

Well, Mr. President, if the chairman will yield, that may be optimistic, but I think we are making progress. I will work overnight--I know the chairman will--to try to line up speakers to complete the pending amendments so we can at least have, hopefully, one vote before the caucuses tomorrow, regardless of what hour we start. I am going to try to line up some speakers to complete at least one of these amendments before the caucuses.

Mr. President, I understand there may be a second-degree amendment to the Chambliss amendment.

That is my understanding. There may be such an amendment, a second-degree amendment. But I would agree with you in identifying the Harkin amendment as a good prospect for completion tomorrow morning. We do have a speaker on our side--at least one--and I am going to try to line that speaker up for the morning.

Mr. President, first, I thank my dear friend from Virginia for his invariable courtesies. We have brought a bill to the floor, finally, which I will have much more to say on Monday, but at this time I simply would call up an amendment that is at the desk. I think it is No. 2430.

I would make inquiry of the Chair as to whether I need to lay aside any pending amendments in order to do that.

In that case, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment and to call up amendment 2430.

Mr. President, I introduce this amendment on behalf of Senators Reed of Rhode Island, Kennedy, Rockefeller, Bingaman, Boxer, and Durbin, and I ask unanimous consent that they be added as cosponsors.

The amendment would establish an independent commission on the treatment of detainees in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo, and elsewhere. This would be modeled after the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, which was an independent commission that we all recognize as being an extremely successful commission. This bipartisan independent commission would examine U.S. policies and practices related to the treatment of detainees, including their detention, interrogation, and rendition. It would also examine the causes of detainee abuses and assess the responsibility of military and civilian leaders within and outside the Department of Defense for policies, actions, and failures to act which may have contributed to such abuse. It would also evaluate the effectiveness and propriety of interrogation techniques and practices for producing intelligence. The independent commission would report on its findings and recommendations to the President and to the Congress.

Mr. President, our troops serve honorably, they serve courageously across the globe. Their honor is besmirched when some of those who we capture are abused. And on top of that our troops' security is jeopardized when people that we detain are not treated as we rightfully insist others treat our troops when they are captured.

The amendment that we are proposing today will help reaffirm the values that we cherish as Americans, will help to reestablish our credibility around the world, and will help to protect our troops should they be captured.

When Secretary Rumsfeld appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 7, 2004, shortly after the horrific pictures of Abu Ghraib appeared in the media, he asked the world to ``judge us by our actions.'' Those were his words. And he went on to say, telling everybody, ``watch how a democracy deals with wrongdoing and with scandal and the pain of acknowledging and correcting our own mistakes and our own weaknesses.'' Secretary Rumsfeld asked all who were watching and within the sound of his voice to ask those who would spread hatred of America if ``the willingness of Americas to acknowledge their own failures before humanity doesn't like the world as surely as the great ideas and beliefs that make this nation a beacon of hope and liberty for all who strive to be free.''

Secretary Rumsfeld's words were direct and they were right. It is important to our efforts to defeat terrorism that the United States investigate itself openly and thoroughly. That is the standard by which we and our causes will be judged and should be judged.

In nearly 2 years since Specialist Darby courageously came forward to report the abuses at Abu Ghraib, the Defense Department has had every opportunity to investigate itself. But the results have fallen far short of the standard that Secretary Rumsfeld set up. Some seek to downplay the significance of these detainee abuses, arguing at the start that they were the result of aberrant behavior of a few rogue reserve Military Police on the night shift at Abu Ghraib, but with each successive of Department of Defense report it has become increasingly clear that the claim that these were the isolated acts of a few rogue reserve MPs does not explain the causes and the factors contributing to detainee abuse, and it does not explain the scope of those abuses.

There have been a number of Department of Defense reviews--8, 10, 12, pick a number. Every one of them has failed to provide a comprehensive picture of the extent and the causes of detainee abuses, and put together, they don't come close to a comprehensive picture of the extent and causes of detainee abuses.

Every one of those reviews and investigations of detainee abuse has been carefully circumscribed, leaving significant gaps and omissions.

I want to go through some of the gaps and omissions of these investigations because we are going to hear on the floor that there have been 10, there have been 12 reviews--whatever the number; you can count them different ways--but when you put them all together, there are massive gaps. That cannot be allowed to remain.

First, we don't know the role of the CIA and other parts of the intelligence community in the mistreatment of detainees or what policies apply to those intelligence personnel. Witness after witness who was in charge of these reviews has told us they had no jurisdiction to look into the intelligence community's mistreatment of detainees or what their role is. They all disclaim the capability, the competence, or the authority to look into the role of the intelligence community, which we know from public statement after public statement of people who have been found guilty and not found guilty, people who were pictured in these pictures at Abu Ghraib, that the intelligence personnel told them to soften up detainees. Yet gap No. 1, the policies of intelligence communities, their activities, their involvement, has not been reviewed.

Second, we don't know what the policies and practices are of the United States regarding the rendition of detainees to other countries, where they may be interrogated using techniques that would not be permitted at U.S. detention facilities.

Third, there is insufficient information, almost total lack, on the role of contractors in U.S. detention and intelligence operations. We are using contractors to interrogate detainees. What is their role? There is total silence, a total gap on their role, with all these reports we have.

Fourth, the detention and interrogation of detainees by special operation forces, that needs close examination.

Fifth, and this is one of the largest gaps of all, all of the unanswered questions regarding the legality under U.S. and international law of the interrogation techniques used by Department of Defense personnel, regardless of whether they were authorized or not authorized by a higher authority. We have sought for a year or more the two key documents that set forth the standards to be used in interrogation that were approved by the Department of Justice. We cannot get the Office of Legal Counsel documents.

These issues are not going to go away. They can't be swept under the rug. With each passing day, we have new revelations of detainee abuses. Courageous and honorable soldiers, such as Captain Fishback, come forward--just a few weeks ago now--with new allegations of mistreatment of prisoners, of confusion over what policies applied, and commanders who appear to have condoned this behavior. He was there. He is speaking out publicly.

There is not a week that goes by that there is not a revelation. We have to get an independent investigation going so that we can refer allegations to an independent commission, to put it in the hands of a bipartisan group.

These revelations only serve to further undermine our international standing and put our troops at risk of being treated similarly should they be captured. That is why a group of retired generals and admirals wrote to the President in September 2004 calling for an independent commission to investigate the treatment of detainees.

So we have a significant group of retired military leaders saying we must have an independent commission. That is why the American Bar Association has endorsed an independent commission.

The administration, I know, opposes this, just the way they have opposed Senator McCain's amendment and Senator Graham's amendment that will get us into the future as to what future standards there are. The administration doesn't want to look at the history. They are wrong. Let the chips fall where they may, wherever that may be. It will benefit everybody.

Most importantly, it will benefit the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States. They are entitled to have their honor. They deserve their honor. They deserve an independent commission which will look at how this happened and prove to the world this is not us. Whatever it is, whatever the policies were, whatever the practices were, we are willing to look them straight in the face and say: We are going to correct that. We are not going to hide it. We are not going to run away from it. We are not going to sweep it under the rug. We are going to look it square in the face. We are going to fill the gaps.

Those gaps are huge. No matter how often it is stated that we have had 8 or 10 reviews, it does not fill the gaps because of the limits placed on those reviews and the gaps that were left.

Mr. President, how much time do I have on this amendment?

I thank the Chair. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. President, I do appreciate that, and I will take 1 minute to respond.

The chairman very properly points out that there was a Schlesinger panel. That panel said the following relative to the lack of cooperation from the CIA with the panel, which is gap No. 1 I have listed as one of the reasons we need an independent commission. The Schlesinger panel said the following:

The panel did not have full access to information involving

the role of the Central Intelligence Agency in detention

operations. This is an area the panel believes needs further

investigation and review.

I agree they did good work, but they were limited in what they were allowed to do, and they themselves recommended further investigation and review.

I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, earlier this year I voted against the budget resolution that passed the Congress because it reflected the wrong priorities. That budget resolution short changed vital public needs such as education and health care for all Americans in order to further cut taxes mainly for the wealthiest Americans. The bill before us today is the first part of a three-part budget reconciliation process set up to help carry out that misguided budget. Budget reconciliation is a special process that gives privileged short cuts under the rules of the Senate. For many of the same reasons that I opposed the original budget resolution, I must also oppose this reconciliation bill. Instead of improving our fiscal situation, the reconciliation package worsens the problem.

This first of the three reconciliation bills is focused on spending cuts. It cuts funding for Medicaid, Medicare, low-income housing grants and other important programs. These cuts, along with the revenue that could be generated as a result of a shortsighted decision to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, in Alaska, are projected to reduce the deficit by $39.1 billion over the next 5 years.

However, at the same time, both Houses of Congress are working on separate versions of the second part of the reconciliation package--the tax bill. That bill would extend $70 billion worth of tax cuts benefiting largely the wealthiest Americans. It simply does not make sense to say we need to cut $39.1 billion out of vital programs to reduce the deficit while at the same time increasing the deficit with $70 billion in tax cuts. These bills continue an irresponsible and inequitable tax policy that recklessly adds to our deficit.

The third part of this three-part reconciliation process will be a bill to allow the national debt to increase by another $781 billion. The need for that third bill shows how dreadful our budget situation has become. The U.S. national debt has already climbed above $8 trillion. In the fiscal year that just ended, we spent over $350 billion just to pay the interest on that debt. That is 14 percent of the Federal Government's spending last year. That is money that doesn't go toward important infrastructure improvements, homeland security or other priorities like health care, education or environmental protection. We simply cannot afford to continue building up this massive debt.

Not only is it financially irresponsible to add to this already heavy debt, but it adds risk to our national security. Forty-four percent of our national debt is held by foreign investors. If these investors ever decide, for economic or political reasons, to stop financing our debt, our markets could be severely impacted. This can provide other countries with greater leverage during trade or other negotiations with us.

In addition to the fiscal irresponsibility in this reconciliation package, it is unconscionable that this body would once again decide to cut services for the poor and the disabled and the elderly and disadvantaged children and then to turn around next week and provide the mostly the wealthiest Americans with $70 billion of tax cuts. I will say at the outset, this bill contains some good provisions. This bill halts an unwise looming 4.4 percent decrease for physicians treating Medicare patients and instead provides a 1 percent increase. This bill was amended and now contains a provision that will prevent a reduction in Federal money for Michigan Medicaid. This bill also has several provisions to help victims of Hurricane Katrina.

However, a large portion of the spending cuts in this reconciliation bill impacts the millions of Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries as well as providers. This is not the first time Congress has attempted to balance the budget on the backs of people who rely on Medicare and Medicaid. In 1997, Congress cuts payments to providers and services to beneficiaries and the cuts were overreaching. It is my fear the same result will come from our actions today. This bill before us cuts reimbursement for several types of Medicare providers including nursing facilities, hospitals and managed care. This bill also places caps on payments for Medicare and Medicaid services. People who rely on Medicare and Medicaid are going to be hurt by this bill. I hope that my colleagues take a long look at by how much the bad outweighs the good in this bill.

In addition, I also regret that the majority decided to include in this budget reconciliation the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, to oil and gas development.

I have consistently opposed opening ANWR to oil and gas development because I believe it is the wrong approach to addressing our Nation's need for long-term energy security. The actual reserves in the area that will be available for leasing under this provision are too small to have a significant impact on our Nation's energy independence and will not produce any oil for more than a decade. I do not believe that this limited potential for oil and gas development in ANWR warrants endangering what is one of the last remaining pristine wilderness areas in the United States.

But, also, the process for consideration of ANWR on the budget reconciliation bill has been flawed from the start. Including this important issue in the budget reconciliation bill has short-circuited the normal legislative process and has eliminated the opportunity for Congress to give the issue the consideration it deserves. In fact, this issue was not even considered when the Senate debated the Energy Policy Act of 2005 for 2 weeks this past summer. Opening ANWR to oil and gas development was not considered on the Energy bill because the votes were not there to pass it except by including it in the budget reconciliation bills that we are considering now.

On a positive note, I am pleased that I was able to include language in this bill that recognizes the needs of border States when awarding emergency and interoperable communications grants.

First responders in border States like Michigan, New Mexico, and Minnesota face unique challenges and must be able to communicate with a number of Federal, State, and local entities including FEMA, Customs and Border Protection, and the National Guard in addition to police, firefighters and emergency medical services personnel from other jurisdictions who may assist in the event of a large scale disaster or terrorist attack. What is often overlooked is that first responders near border crossings must also be able to maintain seamless communication with their Canadian or Mexican counterparts across the border. My amendment would assist our first responders by creating demonstration projects at our northern and southern borders. The amendment provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish at least two International Border Community Interoperable Communications Demonstration Projects--with at least one of these demonstration projects on each of the northern and southern borders. These interoperable communications demonstrations will address the interoperable communications needs of police officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, National Guard, and other emergency response providers at our borders.

In closing, I sincerely hope that future budgets coming from this body will be more responsible than this one. Furthermore, as imprudent as this bill is, I hope it won't be made worse in conference after merging with the even more misguided House bill. Major bipartisan efforts will be needed to make true progress on the long-term fiscal problems we face. I will continue to fight for fair and fiscally responsible policies that help generate jobs and economic security from which all Americans can benefit.

Mr. President, despite the potential threat from terrorists armed with easily accessible powerful firearms, Congress still has taken no action to require Federal registration of .50 caliber sniper rifles. We must do more to protect our families and communities.

The .50 caliber sniper rifle is a favorite weapon of militaries around the world and is also among the most powerful weapons legally available to private individuals in the United States. Published reports indicate that .50 caliber sniper rifles are capable of accurately hitting a target more than 1,500 yards away with a bullet measuring a half inch in diameter. In addition, these thumb-size bullets come in armor-piercing, incendiary, and explosive varieties that can easily punch through aircraft fuselages, fuel tanks, and engines. Currently, these highly destructive sniper rifles, which have no sporting purpose, are subject to only minimal Federal regulation and are treated the same as other long rifles, including shotguns, hunting rifles, and smaller target rifles.

In August, the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association adopted a resolution in support of ``Federal, State, and territorial laws that would restrict the sale, distribution, transfer, and possession of .50 caliber sniper weapons except to the U.S. military, and the National Guard and law enforcement agencies.'' The ABA report that accompanied the resolution states:

Despite its destructive potential, the .50 caliber weapon

is sold like any other rifle. Under current law, one needs

only be 18 years of age, have a driver's license and pass a

minimal background check in order to buy the gun.

The U.S. Congress has acted to restrict various weapons

including specific firearms and ammunition. Rockets, mortars

and ammunition over .50 caliber size cannot be sold or

legally possessed by civilians. Machine guns, sawed-off

shotguns, imported junk handguns, silencers, guns made of

plastic or otherwise undetectable by metal screening devices

and some armor-piercing ammunition are currently banned or

restricted under federal law.

I am a cosponsor of the Fifty-Caliber Sniper Weapon Regulation Act introduced by Senator Feinstein. This bill would reclassify .50 caliber rifles under the National Firearms Act, NFA, treating them the same as other high-powered or especially lethal firearms like several of those mentioned in the ABA's report. Among other things, reclassification of .50 caliber sniper rifles under the NFA would subject them to new registration requirements. Future transfers or sales of .50 caliber sniper rifles would have to be conducted through a licensed dealer with an accompanying background check. In addition, the rifle being sold would have to be registered with Federal authorities.

We must take proactive steps to help prevent terrorists armed with military style firearms purchased in the U.S. from carrying out attacks on innocent Americans. I urge the Senate to take up and pass commonsense gun safety legislation, like the Fifty-Caliber Sniper Weapon Regulation Act, to assist our law enforcement officials in protecting our homeland security.

Mr. President, will the Senators yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator from West Virginia a question.

Has the joint agreement of February 12, 2004, been made a part of the Record?

Mr. President, one additional unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that it be noted in the Record that items C through G in the February 12, 2004, press release setting forth the agreement be noted as being phase II of the agreement.

Mr. President, the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program has successfully carried out activities and services that support family reunification, family preservation, community-based family support, and other services for children in need.

My amendment builds upon the success of this program, through an enhanced, coordinated effort to reunite children with their families, by directing the Secretary to undertake a family reunification initiative in concert with national non-profit organizations engaged in similar efforts. The goal is to ensure that the most effective methods are utilized to achieve family reunification expeditiously. This can be achieved by collecting, tracking and coordinating information maintained by national non-profit organizations that are also engaged in family reunification efforts.

It is quite evident why such a coordinated effort is needed. Over the past several months, we learned a lot about displacement. After nearly 2 months have passed since Hurricane Katrina, thousands are still seeking family members. Of the 2,000 foster children who fled New Orleans due to Hurricane Katrina, 37 are still unaccounted for.

Overall, there have been 4,878 reports of missing children and over 1,600 not yet resolved. There have been 12,754 adults reported as missing. Of these cases, 6,562 remain unresolved. We have all witnessed rescues from the rooftops in New Orleans. It was the norm rather than the exception in many instances for intact families to be separately rescued and subsequently sent to many different places, all across the country.

Some have miraculously reconnected with one another. Far too few. We cannot depend on miracles; we need a coordinated system that will help unite family members who seek one another. It is for the social good to bring families together, when possible. Family

matters. The strength of the family is greater than its parts. The stress of losing your home, your job, your community, does not compare to losing your family.

I am pleased that the managers of the bill have agreed to support this amendment.

Mr. President, last Thursday, in the midst of National Safe Schools Week, a student was nearly shot to death inside a Michigan high school. This tragic incident further underscores the need to do more to combat youth violence, especially gun violence.

According to published newspaper reports of the shooting, around noon last Thursday, a tenth grade student fired as many as three shots at another student in a crowded high school hallway. The 15-year-old victim was struck once in the chest by a .380 caliber bullet, which missed his heart by less than an inch. Fortunately, he is expected to live.

The suspect, who is also 15 years old, allegedly used a stolen .380 caliber pistol in the shooting and now faces life in prison after being charged as an adult. Reportedly, the suspect also has a previous conviction involving a firearm violation. The shooting last Thursday came less than a month after two other students were injured in a drive-by shooting outside the same high school. Unfortunately, youth gun violence continues to threaten communities, destroy families, and change the lives of too many young people forever.

Only a day before last Thursday's shooting, thousands of young people across the country observed a Day of National Concern About Young People and Gun Violence, which was designed to empower children and teenagers to do what they can to eliminate gun violence in their communities. In many communities, students were given the opportunity to sign a voluntary pledge against gun violence. Since the first Day of National Concern About Young People and Gun Violence in 1996, more than 7 million students have signed the pledge. Here is what the pledge says:

I will never bring a gun to school; I will never use a gun

to settle a dispute; I will use my influence with my friends

to keep them from using guns to settle disputes. My

individual choices and actions, when multiplied by those of

young people throughout the country, will make a difference.

Together, by honoring this pledge, we can reverse the

violence and grow up in safety.

I applaud the organizers and students who participated in this year's Day of National Concern About Young People and Gun Violence for their efforts to reduce gun violence. The thousands of students who signed the pledge this year, and the millions before them, have promised to do what they can to prevent tragedies like last week's school shooting in Michigan. Congress should do its part by adequately funding important law enforcement programs and by passing commonsense gun safety legislation.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, November 3 marks the 75th anniversary of the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel. Since it first opened to vehicle traffic in 1930, the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel has made a tremendous contribution not only to my home State of Michigan, but to our Nation as a whole. On the occasion of this historic milestone, I know my colleagues join me in recognition of the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel, the hard-working men and women who keep it operating, the thousands of Americans and Canadians who pass through it each day, and the critical role it plays in our economic relationship with Canada.

The Detroit-Windsor Tunnel serves as much more than a conduit for travel, it is a critical socioeconomic link between the United States and Canada. The idea for a tunnel to connect the cities of Detroit and Windsor was first conceived in the 1870s. After a number of failed attempts, Windsor Mayor Edward Blake Winter proposed a new tunnel project in 1919. Mayor Winter believed a tunnel would foster greater unity between the two countries and would serve as a memorial to the soldiers who were killed in World War I. After 11 years of planning and construction, this vision finally became a reality on November 1, 1930. On that day, President Herbert Hoover pressed a golden button in the U.S. Capitol officially opening the mile-long tunnel and forever changing and strengthening the relationship between the United States and Canada.

Today, the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel remains the only underwater international tunnel open to vehicular traffic in the world. Its construction in the late 1920s was unparalleled by any other tunnel in the world and took only 26 months to complete, nearly a year ahead of schedule. Amazingly, the tunnel allows four full lanes of traffic to cross the U.S.-Canadian border at a depth of 75 feet below the surface of the water.

However, it is not simply the marvel of the tunnel's engineering that we celebrate on its 75th anniversary. We must also recognize its continuing contributions to trade and travel between the United States and Canada. Approximately 29,000 vehicles pass through the tunnel each day, making the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel one of the 15 most heavily traveled border crossings in the United States.

Everyday, untold numbers of workers, manufacturers, and suppliers on both sides of the border depend on the Detroit Windsor Tunnel to get to jobs and transport products. Thousands of families also use the tunnel. This movement of people and goods has an immeasurable impact on the economic health of Detroit and Windsor alike. In addition, the cross- border transit reinforces U.S.-Canadian relations.

It is with great pride that I honor the 75 years of valuable contributions made by the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel. I would like to extend my sincerest wishes of thanks and good luck to the people of Detroit and Windsor and the people who keep the tunnel operating as they work to make its future as productive and beneficial as its past.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed as though in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I note that S. Res. 287, which is a resolution I introduced on behalf of Senator Stabenow, Senator Reid, Senator Frist, and I believe a majority of this body now, has been cleared for passage later on this evening. I very much welcome that development. It is fitting, indeed, that on the day after the passing of Rosa Parks the majority of this body sees it important to adopt a bipartisan resolution honoring her life.

I thank the Chair. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, last evening, we lost Rosa Parks. She died at the age of 92. Her personal bravery and self-sacrifice have shaped this Nation's history and she is remembered with reverence and respect by us all.

A half century ago, Rosa Parks, the black seamstress whose refusal to give up her seat on a Montgomery, AL bus to a white man sparked a revolution in American race relations. Rosa Parks decided that she would no longer tolerate the humiliation and demoralization of racial segregation on a bus. In her own words, Rosa Parks said, ``People always say that I didn't give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn't true. I was not tired physically, or no more tired than I usually was at the end of a working day. I was not old, although some people have an image of me as being old then. I was forty-two. No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in.''

The strength and spirit of this courageous woman captured the consciousness of not only the American people but the entire world. Rosa Parks's arrest for violating the city's segregation laws was the catalyst for the Montgomery bus, boycott. Her stand on that December day in 1955 was not an isolated incident but part of a lifetime of struggle for equality and justice. Twelve years earlier, in 1943, Rosa Parks had been arrested for violating another one of the city's bus related segregation laws requiring blacks to pay their fares at the front of the bus, then get off of the bus and reboard from the rear of the bus. The driver of that bus, was the same driver with whom she would have her confrontation years later.

The rest is history; the boycott which Rosa Parks began was the beginning of an American revolution that elevated that status of African Americans nationwide and introduced to the world a young leader who would one day have a national holiday declared in his honor, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.

For her personal bravery and self-sacrifice, in 1999, we honored Rosa Parks with the Congressional Gold Medal.

My home State of Michigan proudly claims Rosa Parks as one of our own. Rosa Parks and her husband Raymond made the journey to Detroit in 1957 where Rosa Parks's brother resided. In the years since, she continued to dedicate her life to advancing equal opportunity and to educating our youth about the past struggles for freedom, from slavery up to the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

In 1987, the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self-Development was established. Its primary focus has been working with young people from across the country and the world as part of the ``Pathways to Freedom'' program. The pathways program traces history from the days of the underground railroad to the civil rights movement of the 1960s and beyond. Through this institute, young people, ages 11 to 17, meet with national leaders and participate in a variety of educational and research projects. During the summer months, they have the opportunity to travel across the country visiting historical sites.

The Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self-Development has expanded to include an intergenerational mentoring and computer skills partnership program, which teams young people with elderly Americans. Generational and age barriers break down as young people help the elderly develop computer skills, while the elderly provide their unique and personalized recollections of their lives in American history. To date, over 10,000 youth from around the world have participated in this program.

With the work of her institute, we can truly say that in addition to having played a major role in shaping America's past and present, Rosa Parks is continuing to help shape America's future.

Mr. President, I close with the profound, instructive words of Rosa Parks, which she spoke in 1988. She said: ``I am leaving this legacy to all of you . . . to bring peace, justice, equality, love and a fulfillment of what our lives should be. Without vision, the people will perish, and without courage and inspiration, dreams will die--the dream of freedom and peace.''

Mr. President, October 16-22 is National Safe Schools Week. School violence, or even the threat of school violence, in too many of our schools instills fear in our students, and limits their ability to learn. It also can threaten and intimidate teachers and make instruction more difficult.

National Safe Schools Week is intended to raise awareness of school safety issues and empower students, parents, teachers, and parents to do what they can to prevent violence in their schools. Congress should also do its part by passing common sense gun safety legislation and by funding important programs that help to reduce school violence.

According to 2003 statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 950,000 students take a weapon to school each month, resulting in more than 1,400,000 students being injured or threatened with a weapon during the school year. In addition, every month, an estimated 840,000 students feel too unsafe to go to school. This is a problem which left unaddressed will continue to hold children back from reaching their full educational potential.

Statistics cited by the PAX organization, one of the organizers of National Safe Schools Week, indicate that in 81 percent of the school shootings in our country, the attackers told other students of their plans prior to the attack. Further, students are responsible for tipping off school authorities in 93 percent of the cases where weapons are confiscated from students at school. To strengthen this fact, PAX created the Speak Up Campaign. The centerpiece of the campaign is a national hotline, 1-866-SPEAK-UP, where children and teenagers can call to anonymously report threats involving weapons at their school. Since the creation of the hotline in 2002, the Speak Up Campaign has received more than 7,000 calls which were then passed along to appropriate law enforcement officials.

School violence threatens to put our children's safety and ability to learn in jeopardy. Our Nation's schools need our help to combat this ongoing problem. To start, we should adequately fund Federal grant programs like COPS. COPS hiring grants have been used to hire more than 6,500 school resource officers since 1999. These officers help ensure a safe environment in and around our schools and collaborate with the school community to more effectively deal with school violence issues.

We should also support common sense gun storage requirements to make it more difficult for children and teenagers to access guns and ammunition. Recently, I joined with 69 of my colleagues in voting for an amendment offered by Senator Kohl that would require licensed dealers, manufacturers, and importers to include a safe gun storage or gun safety device with every handgun they sell. Use of such storage devices could help prevent a child or teenager from acquiring a gun that they might use to injure or kill another student at school. Hopefully, Senator Kohl's amendment will become law.

School violence has always posed a threat to students and teachers, but lethal and easily concealable guns have escalated the problem. Gun violence, not only affects students at a particular school, it has a rippling effect on students at schools in the same county, State, and in some cases, the entire country. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting efforts to reduce the threat of violence, especially gun violence, to our schools.