Floor Statements

Mr. President, legislation has been introduced that would repeal nearly every gun safety law in the District of Colombia. Sadly, the bill was introduced during the celebration of National Police Week and just days after 153 law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty in 2004 were honored at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial.

The misnamed ``District of Colombia Personal Protection Act'' would repeal local laws in Washington, DC that ban the sale and possession of unregistered firearms, require firearm registration, impose commonsense safe storage requirements, and ban semiautomatic weapons in the District. Should this bill become law, those who live and work in our Nation's capital as well as tourists and other visitors would face a greater threat of gun violence.

In a statement last week, DC Mayor Anthony Williams said, ``I am incensed by any congressional proposal that uses District residents as pawns. I am incensed by any proposal that assaults Home Rule. And I am incensed by any proposal that is an insult to the memory of the people who have died in this city due to gun violence--in particular the three children who have died from gun violence this year.''

Instead of interfering in local affairs in Washington, DC, the Senate should focus its energies on legislation on improving the safety of the families and communities across the Nation. The Senate has yet to consider several common sense gun safety measures during this Congress. Among these are proposals that would reauthorize the 1994 assault weapons ban, prohibit the sale of the Five-Seven armor-piercing handgun, and help investigators working to prevent attacks by terrorists using high powered weapons. I urge the Senate to take up and pass these bills to make our Nation safer.

Mr. President, I would like to call my colleagues' attention to plans to honor a distinguished religious leader in Michigan, Monsignor Stanley Milewski. Monsignor Milewski will be honored at a special service of thanksgiving followed by a dinner reception on Sunday, June 5, 2005, on the St. Mary's Orchard Lake Schools campus. The tribute will mark his 50th anniversary as a Polish- American diocesan priest.

Since his ordination into the priesthood on June 4, 1955, by Cardinal Edward Mooney in Detroit, Monsignor Milewski has been an important part of the history of the Polish pastoral ministry in Michigan and in the United States. Monsignor Milewski has earned the respect and admiration of people throughout Michigan and across the United States, and is especially admired by the approximately three-quarters of a million people of Polish descent who are part of the Archdiocese of Detroit, because of his devotion to service and confident leadership through years of ministry.

Born in Detroit to Polish immigrants on November 30, 1929, Monsignor Milewski received his primary and secondary education in Catholic parochial schools in Detroit. He earned his undergraduate degree from St. Mary's College of Orchard Lake and completed graduate studies at St. John's Provincial Seminary in Plymouth, MI, and at SS. Cyril and Methodius Seminary in Orchard Lake. SS. Cyril and Methodius Seminary enjoys the distinction of being the only Polish seminary in the United States and was founded in Detroit in 1885. Monsignor Milewski was awarded an honorary doctorate degree from Alliance College in Pennsylvania and an honorary doctorate of theology degree from Madonna University in Livonia, MI. He was later appointed to the faculty of the Orchard Lake Schools in January 1957, and his responsibilities have included procurator-treasurer, teacher, athletic director, and vice rector. He served as chancellor of the Lake Orchard Schools from 1977 to 2000.

Monsignor Milewski's appointments include the Prelate of Honor of His Holiness John Paul II on March 20, 1990, Honorary Canon of the Diocese of Plock, and Honorary Canon of the Diocese of Lomza. In addition to the many recognitions and awards he has received, Monsignor Milewski was honored to have the Pope visit the 120-acre Orchard Lake Schools campus in 1969. Of that visit, Monsignor said, ``From that point on, I really got to know what a great man he was and what a tremendous memory he had.'' He recalls how the Pope once remarked that the seminary at Orchard Lakes was the most beautiful Polish seminary in the world. The campus includes the John Paul II center, a museum of artifacts and photos.

I know my colleagues join me in congratulating Monsignor Milewski on his faithfulness to his calling and on his many achievements in the pastoral ministry. I am pleased to express my sincere appreciation to him on his 50th anniversary and to wish him many more years of good health and happiness.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to proceed for 20 minutes. I am very sorry the Senator from Kansas left. Let me first ask unanimous consent I be allowed to proceed.

I ask unanimous consent that transcripts of two public hearings where I asked questions of General Hayden, relative to the process of seeking identification of people who are referred to or who participate in intercepted conversations--that those unclassified, public hearing transcripts, or portions thereof, be printed in the Record.

The journalist Carl Bernstein once said, ``We have a national memory in this country of about 7 minutes.'' Once more, he has been proven right.

Here we are, 2 years after one of the worst intelligence disasters in our history, debating the nomination of a man to the U.N. ambassadorship, a man who has a track record of attempting to manipulate intelligence by seeking to punish intelligence analysts who do not support his view. We are so slow to learn from our history, and we are so quick to repeat it.

The issue here--and I am sure my friend from Connecticut would agree--is not the issue of whether or not policymakers have a right to disagree with analysts; of course, they do. We all should challenge analysts and analysis. We do not do enough of it. I happen to agree with the Senator from Kansas on that. That is not the issue.

The question is whether or not we manipulate intelligence or try to manipulate intelligence by trying to force analysts, who are supposed to be objective, to reach conclusions with which they don't agree in order to get support for our own policy positions. That is what is unacceptable. It is not unacceptable to disagree with analysts or not to follow their analysis. That is not at all unacceptable. That is what policymakers are here for, to make judgments, to pick between analyses. But what is unacceptable is what Mr. Bolton did repeatedly, which is to try to get analysts, who are supposed to be objective, fired or removed or transferred because they would not come to the conclusion to which he wanted them to come. That is the issue here with Mr. Bolton.

This administration does not hold people who politicize intelligence to account. Following the major intelligence failures before 9/11 and Iraq, the administration has failed to hold anybody accountable for either failure. In fact, the President gave one of the people most responsible for the intelligence disaster before Iraq, the CIA Director, a gold medal. Now the President wants to give John Bolton a promotion, although John Bolton has, in unconscionable--and I believe even potentially dangerous--ways attempted to get intelligence analysts to shape their views to his views and, if they wouldn't bend, to break them.

We know what happens when intelligence is politicized.

Before the Iraq war, ``a slam dunk'' was the CIA assessment,

although the underlying intelligence contained nuances,

qualifications, and caveats. Too often the CIA told the

administration what it thought the administration wanted to

hear.

The July 2004 bipartisan report of the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded the following:

Most of the major key judgments in the intelligence

community's October 2002 ``National Intelligence Estimate,

Iraq's Continuing Programs for Mass Destruction,'' either

overstated or were not supported by the underlying

intelligence reporting.

Just this month, newspapers reported on leaked notes from a July 23, 2002, meeting of the British Prime Minister and his senior national security staff. According to the note, the head of British foreign intelligence told Prime Minister Blair, 7 months before the war, that President Bush:

. . . wanted to remove Saddam through military action

justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the

intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

Those are contemporaneous notes, prior to the war against Iraq. Such reports reinforce the view of much of the world that the administration shaped intelligence to serve policy purposes and that it strayed from the critical principle that intelligence must be objective, independent, and free from political influence.

Twenty-five years ago, the Iran-Contra Committee reaffirmed the principle that, after heavy manipulation of intelligence by CIA Director Bill Casey:

. . . the gathering, analysis and reporting of intelligence

should be done in a way that there could be no question that

the conclusions are driven by the actual facts rather than by

what a policy advocate hopes those facts will be.

That was 25 years ago. That was Iran-Contra. That was a bipartisan criticism of the then-CIA Director Casey.

Intelligence must be gathered and analyzed in a way that there can be no doubt but that the conclusions are driven by the actual facts, not by what a policy advocate hopes those facts will be.

It is going to take years of hard work to regain credibility in our intelligence assessments after the massive failures in Iraq. The Senate began that work with the intelligence reform bill in 2004. In that bill, Congress explicitly stated that national intelligence should be ``objective'' and ``independent of political considerations.'' That is the law of the land. We require the process to ensure alternative analyses within the intelligence community.

The nomination of John Bolton shows a disdain for objective, independent intelligence and flies in the face of the Senate's effort to reform our intelligence system. Indeed, Mr. Bolton is the personification of what has been wrong with our system. Mr. Bolton has a deeply disturbing history of trying to punish intelligence analysts who do not agree with his views, of trying to squelch intelligence analysis and of distorting the intelligence community's view when they do not agree with his own.

He is aggressive about pursuing the answer that he wants, regardless of what the objective intelligence analysts say, and his actions have had a noticeably chilling effect on the intelligence analysts that he tries to intimidate and a harmful effect on the intelligence process itself.

Let's just look at his record. Mr. Bolton's view on intelligence on Cuba can be gained from an e-mail to him from his chief of staff that called the intelligence community's language on Cuba ``wimpy.'' As a policymaker, he is entitled, and was entitled, to his own view. I make it clear that what the Senator from Kansas said, I agree with. Mr. Bolton was entitled to his own view, but what he was not entitled to do was force intelligence analysts to change their views.

In preparation for his speech to the Heritage Foundation, Mr. Bolton repeatedly sought clearance for stronger language on Cuba's biological warfare effort than the intelligence community would support. He was repeatedly rebuffed by intelligence analysts at the State Department and the CIA, and he repeatedly responded by seeking those analysts' dismissal or removal, thereby crossing a vital line, a clear line, a red line, the line between ignoring intelligence analyses which, wise or not, is his right to do as a policymaker, that is on one side of the line. But the other side of the line he must not cross, trying to intimidate analysts into shaping intelligence analyses to his liking, that is totally impermissible. It is potentially dangerous, and it is clearly on the wrong side, the unacceptable side, the intolerable side of the line.

When he did not receive the analysis he wanted on Cuba, Mr. Bolton unleashed a tirade against the intelligence analyst.

Soon afterwards, he went to see Tom Fingar, the Principal Deputy Assistant for INR, to try to have the analyst removed. Mr. Fingar testified that Secretary Bolton was still visibly upset during their meeting, and he said that ``he wasn't going to be told what he could say by a midlevel INR munchkin analyst.''

Mr. Bolton had made clear to the analyst he was his boss, and in essence had asked his subordinate: How dare you disagree with your superior?

Mr. Fingar then testified that Mr. Bolton said he wanted the analyst ``taken off his accounts.'' Mr. Fingar protested and said ``he is our chemical and biological challenge weapons specialist, this is what he does''--making clear to Mr. Bolton that reassignment would really mean termination. Mr. Bolton persisted.

The record then shows that Mr. Bolton sought the analyst's removal two more times over a 6-month period. In one of those attempts, Mr. Bolton met with then-Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence, Carl Ford, who later said the following:

I left that meeting with the perception that I had been

asked for the first time to fire an intelligence analyst for

what he had said and done. In my experience no one had ever

done what Secretary Bolton did.

Months later, Mr. Bolton made yet another attempt when Neil Silver became the analyst's supervisor. In his testimony to the Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Bolton even conceded he was still pursuing the analyst's transfer.

In his attempt to manipulate intelligence on Cuba, Mr. Bolton also tried to have a national intelligence officer from the CIA transferred. Mr. Bolton went personally to the CIA at Langley to argue for the analyst's dismissal. This is an analyst Mr. Bolton had never met, an analyst to whom he had never spoken. He had never read the analyst's work. He only knew one thing: The analyst disagreed with his views and, therefore, he had to be brought to heel.

This effort, too, lasted several months and involved repeated attempts by Mr. Bolton and his staff. Former Deputy Director of the CIA John McLaughlin said of the request to dismiss the intelligence officer that it is ``the only time I had ever heard such a request.''

So we have the Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin as saying nobody has ever made a request to him, that he knew of, to dismiss an intelligence officer because of a disagreement with that officer's analysis--very similar to what Mr. Ford said at the office of the Assistant Secretary of State: ``in his experience, no one had ever done what Secretary Bolton did,'' which was to fire an intelligence analyst for what he had said and done.

In the end, both analysts were supported by their supervisors and they rightfully kept their positions. The only person who should have been fired over those incidents was Mr. Bolton.

Mr. Bolton's defenders like to claim no harm, no foul. That is, because none of his targets were fired despite his efforts; that everything is just fine. But the harm is in the attempt. Shooting at someone is still a crime even if you miss. As soon as a policymaker threatens an intelligence analyst with removal for disagreeing with that analyst's analysis, the harm is done.

As Mr. McLaughlin testified--and this is something the Senator from Kansas either overlooked or ignores. Listen to Mr. McLaughlin's testimony: It is perfectly all right for a policymaker to express disagreement with an intelligence officer or an analyst. And it is perfectly all right for them to challenge their word vigorously. But I think it is different, McLaughlin said, to then request, because of this disagreement, that the person be transferred.

That is the line. That is the line which Mr. Bolton crossed. That is the line that we ought to insist on. Every Member of this body should insist that line never be crossed. We ought to protect the right of policymakers to disagree, to question, and to ignore the analysis. We should never condone a policymaker who wants to see an analyst fired because the policymaker disagrees with that person's analysis. That is the line which is dangerous to cross because the pressure that puts on the analyst is to come up with the answer that the policymaker wants to hear. That is what is dangerous, when we hear an analyst, or you hear a CIA Administrator say it is a slam dunk, when it isn't, because he thinks that is what the policy maker wants to hear.

We cannot tolerate people being fired, discharged, transferred because the policymaker disagrees with the analysis of that analyst.

Mr. McLaughlin is right. It was different. It was dangerous. And according to Mr. Ford, Mr. Bolton's actions had an impact. Word of the incident, according to Mr. Ford, ``spread like wildfire among the other analysts.'' Mr. Ford testified:

I can only give you my impressions, but I clearly believe

that the analysts in INR were very negatively affected by

this incident. They were scared.

Mr. Bolton's actions were so damaging that Secretary of State Powell made a special personal visit to offer encouragement to the analysts. In his remarks, Secretary Powell specifically referred to the analysts that Mr. Bolton had targeted. He told them: Continue to call it like you see it. Continue to speak truth to power.

Former Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation John Wolf confirmed what should be all too clear about Mr. Bolton, that these examples of his behavior are not isolated instances but a persistent pattern. Mr. Wolf testified that Mr. Bolton sought the removal of two officers from a nonproliferation bureau over policy differences, and that, in general, officers in the bureau--and now this is Assistant Secretary of State John Wolf--that officers in the bureau ``felt undue pressure to conform to the views of [Mr. Bolton] versus the views they thought they could support.''

Events of the past few years involving the completely missed intelligence on Iraq, the distorted intelligence on Iraq, have shown that we need to be encouraging independent and alternative analysis, not squelching it.

The Senate Intelligence Committee report on the intelligence community's prewar intelligence assessments on Iraq concluded that a lack of alternative analysis contributed to the failure of that intelligence.

The committee wrote that:

. . . the analysts' and collectors' chains of command, their

respective agencies, from immediate services to the National

Intelligence Council and the Director of the Central

Intelligence Agency, all share responsibilities for not

encouraging analysts to challenge their assumptions, fully

consider alternative arguments, or accurately characterize

the intelligence report.

``Most importantly,'' according to the committee, they failed ``to recognize when analysts had lost their objectivity and take corrective action.''

Our Intelligence Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, said corrective action should be taken when analysts lose their objectivity. Mr. Bolton tried to get analysts punished for insisting on their independence. Mr. Bolton did not value independent and objective analysis. He scorned it. He sought not to encourage alternative views but to impose his own. He did not challenge analysts. He bullied them. And he tried to fire those who disagreed with him.

Now, this is not ``water cooler'' gossip about an obnoxious boss. Objective, factual analysis can make the difference between success and failure, between life and death. In the near future, we may face a crisis over North Korea's nuclear program or Iran's nuclear intentions. Congress and the public must be confident that intelligence assessments represent information that has been assessed objectively, not shaped to serve policy goals. And if we need to go to the United Nations to make a case against a country based on our intelligence about that country's dangerous activity, the world must have confidence in the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

When Bush decided to make the case against Iraq to the United Nations, he sent Secretary of State Colin Powell, one of America's most credible diplomats. Today, we are being asked to confirm one of America's least credible diplomats to serve in an important diplomatic post, where we need credibility, we need the confidence to bring other countries to our side. We should not allow a situation in which the world might question whether it is hearing a credible view or whether it is hearing a Bolton view of intelligence.

Perhaps the biggest canard of the debate is that John Bolton is the best person to reform the United Nations. The U.N. needs reform, but so does the intelligence community. So does its systems. And, frankly, so does John Bolton. Any number of people would be a far more credible voice for reform at the United Nations.

This is a momentous decision for this body. It is shocking and sad-- it is shocking and sad--to me that the Senate may vote on this nomination while Senators are being denied critical, relevant information that members of the Foreign Relations Committee have sought. Members of that committee have requested information about the number of requests by Mr. Bolton for the names of U.S. persons cited in intelligence intercepts. The administration has refused to provide relevant information to members of the Foreign Relations Committee and to this body.

Now, those requests may be benign that Mr. Bolton made for the names of those persons and what they were saying in those intercepts. They could be part of an effort by this nominee to politicize and punish, since that was the pattern of his activity. We do not know that. But we have a right to know that. We have a right to ask why those requests were made. But this administration has refused to provide that information. We should insist on this information before we vote on this nomination. We should insist that at least the leaders of our committees, the Intelligence Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee, be given access to the names of people that Mr. Bolton asked the intercepts relative to.

Denying the Congress and the Members of this body--

I thank the Chair and I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.

Denying Members of this body information is part of a woeful pattern of this administration denying information to the Congress. Even the Republicans of the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittees and the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee over in the House included language in their bill which says that the Bush administration should be criticized ``for its lack of responsiveness to repeated Congressional requests for information.''

Mr. President, this Senate, as a body, should insist on legitimate requests for information from its Members. Every Member--every Member-- should add his or her voice to the demand for the production of relevant documents which Senators need to decide on confirmation or for any other legitimate reason. This body will be a lesser place if we do not stand with each other when it comes to gaining access to documents, at least in the absence of a claim of executive privilege.

Now, I happen to believe we should give deference to the President on the selection of his team, but deference does not mean abdication of our best judgment when a nominee crosses the line. If we do that, we will send the wrong message to anyone working in the intelligence community who sees Mr. Bolton's behavior rewarded rather than seeing him held accountable. If we do that, we will send the wrong message to the international community, to send a repeat abuser of intelligence and an abuser of intelligence analysts to be our representative at the United Nations.

We have the opportunity to send a different message to the intelligence community and to the world. We can cast a vote for objectivity in intelligence, for intelligence that is free of political influence, and for accountability. But before we vote--before we vote-- legitimate requests for documents and information from Members of this body should be honored and should be supported by every Senator. That is a need which, at one time or another, each one of us has, and as an institution we should, in one voice, demand that need be met.

This is a demand for relevant documents relevant to the qualifications of this nominee to be confirmed to this high office. It is a demand for documents which relate to an issue which is clearly involved in this nomination, and that has to do with a pattern, on the part of Mr. Bolton, of punishing people who analyze intelligence who do not give him an analysis that he likes and that supports his own policy.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and thank my good friend from Minnesota for yielding the time.

Mr. President, the names of the people that he sought information on are incredibly relevant to the question of why he sought information on those people, what was his motive. There is a pattern here, a pattern of punishment of people if they did not provide analysis that he agreed with, if they disagreed with his views. And when he asks for those intercepts, he may have had a perfectly benign reason for doing it. On the other hand, it may have been part of this totally unacceptable pattern.

But the Senate has the same right to know what he knew and he asked for, which was intercepts of particular people who were either involved in the conversation or referred to in the conversation.

If the Senate doesn't insist on that right for every Member of this body, we are a lesser body. We should insist upon that for Members who agree with us or not. This is an institutional issue of great magnitude.

If the Senator will yield, my good friend from Minnesota. If you agree that the Senate is entitled to this information, but not now--if not now, when? The reason for seeking this information relates to the nomination of Mr. Bolton. That is why this is so relevant and important. I think the members of the Foreign Relations Committee have been seeking this information for many weeks. So it is not as though this is a last-minute request which is holding up the vote on a nomination or would hold it up until we receive that information.

By the way, I happen to believe--and I don't know if my good friend from Connecticut agrees with me--that if the chairman and vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee saw the names and concluded that none of those names had any relationship to this nomination because none of the names are people he tried to get fired, transfer, or punish, that would satisfy me. But the administration knows the names. John Bolton got the names. But the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee and the chairman won't be given those names and they are redacted. I believe the Senate cannot accept that standard and hold ourselves up as a body that is equal in power to the executive branch. We cannot. We cannot say to ourselves that this body will look at all relevant evidence that relates to confirmation before we give our consent to it and protect the Members' requests for information if we do not insist that at least the chairman

and vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee have access to the names and see whether those names are relevant to this nomination in terms of the specific people John Bolton tried to punish or get transferred.

I find this really intolerable, incredible, that we as a body will not stand with a legitimate request for relevant information that relates to a pending nomination that was promptly and timely made.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter to Chairman Lugar and to Ranking Member Biden from Senator Rockefeller dated May 25 be printed in the Record.

Parliamentary inquiry.

Under the rules and precedents of the Senate, how many votes are required to invoke cloture and end debate on the pending nomination?

Is there an answer to my parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. President, President Harry Truman once said that the only thing new in the world is the history that you do not know. And so it is today with those who think this effort to amend the rules by breaking them, the nuclear option, is something new under the Sun.

This is not the first time that it has been tried. Sadly, there have been a few other efforts to amend the rules by fiat, but, and this is the crucial point, the Senate has never done it.

Whenever an effort was made to change the rule by fiat, it has been rejected by this body. There are procedures for amending the Senate's rules, and the Senate has always insisted that they be followed. In previous cases, the majority of Senators has stood up for that principle, often over the wishes of their own party's leader. It is my hope there will be a majority of such Senators tomorrow.

I entered some of that history in the Congressional Record last week, and I will not repeat it all now. One incident stands out and bears repeating, and after doing so, I will add a second chapter to that incident.

In 1949, Vice President Alben Barkley ruled that cloture applied to a motion to proceed to consideration of a bill. In other words, that rule XXII, which allows for the cutoff of debate, applied to a motion to proceed to consideration of a bill. The ruling was contrary to Senate precedent and against the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian and was made despite the fact that rule XXII, as it then existed, clearly provided only that the pending matter was subject to cloture.

The Senate rejected Vice President Barkley's ruling by a vote of 46 to 41. Significantly, 23 Democratic Senators, nearly half of the Democrats voting,

opposed the ruling by the Vice President of their own party. Later, the Senate, using the process provided by Senate rules, by a vote of 63 to 23, adopted a change in rule XXII to include a motion to proceed.

After that rule change, changed according to the procedures for amending rules, a supermajority could end a debate on the motion to proceed to a bill, for instance, as well as ending debate on the bill itself.

Last week, I quoted the words of one of the giants of Senate history, Senator Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan about that debate. This is what Senator Vandenberg said:

I continue to believe that the rules of the Senate are as

important to equity and order in the Senate as is the

Constitution to the life of the Republic, and that those

rules should never be changed except by the Senate itself, in

the direct fashion prescribed by the rules themselves.

Senator Vandenberg continued:

One of the immutable truths in Washington's Farewell

Address, which cannot be altered even by changing events in a

changing world, is the following sentence: ``The Constitution

which at any time exists, until changed by an explicit and

authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory

upon all.''

[T]he father of his country said to us, by analogy, ``the rules of the Senate which at any time exist until changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole Senate are sacredly obligatory upon all.''

Senator Vandenberg continued:

When a substantive change is made in the rules by

sustaining a ruling by the Presiding Officer of the Senate--

and that is what I contend is being undertaken here--it does

not mean that the rules are permanently changed. It simply

means, that regardless of precedent or traditional practice,

the rules, hereafter, mean whatever the Presiding Officer of

the Senate, plus a simple majority of Senators voting at the

time, want the rules to mean. We fit the rules to the

occasion, instead of fitting the occasion to the rules.

Therefore, in the final analysis, under such circumstances,

there are no rules except the transient, unregulated wishes

of a majority of whatever quorum is temporarily in control of

the Senate.

And Senator Vandenberg added:

That, Mr. President, is not my idea of the greatest

deliberative body in the world. . . . No matter how important

[the pending issue's] immediate incidence may seem today, the

integrity of the Senate's rules is our paramount concern,

today, tomorrow, and so long as this great institution lives.

Senator Vandenberg continued:

This is a solemn decision--reaching far beyond the

immediate consequence--and it involves just one

consideration. What do the present Senate rules mean; and for

the sake of law and order, shall they be protected in that

meaning until changed by the Senate itself in the fashion

required by the rules?

Senator Vandenberg eloquently summarized what is at the root of the nuclear option:

. . . [T]he rules of the Senate as they exist at any given

time and as they are clinched by precedents should not be

changed substantively by the interpretive action of the

Senate's Presiding Officer, even with the transient sanction

of an equally transient Senate majority. The rules can be

safely changed only by the direct and conscious action of the

Senate itself, acting in the fashion prescribed by the rules.

Otherwise, no rule in the Senate is worth the paper that it

is written on, and this so-called ``greatest deliberative

body in the world'' is at the mercy of every change in

parliamentary authority.

Mr. President, tonight, I do more than underscore the foresightful words of Senator Vandenberg, which are all the more significant because, as he made clear, he agreed that the Senate's cloture rule needed to be changed in the fashion proposed but not by using the illegitimate process proposed of amending our rules by fiat of a Presiding Officer.

There was even more to it--and it is again directly relevant to the proceeding that is pending. The year was 1948, 1 year before the Barkley ruling which I just described. Senator Vandenberg was President pro tempore of the Senate and was presented with a motion to end debate on a motion to proceed to consideration of an antipoll tax bill.

Senator Vandenberg ruled, as Presiding Officer, that the then- language of rule XXII, providing a procedure for terminating debate for ``measures before the Senate'' did not apply to cutting off debate on the motion to proceed to a measure, even though he thought that it should on the merits. So he ruled against what he believed in on the merits because of his deep belief in the integrity of the rules of the Senate. And in making that ruling, again while serving as the Presiding Officer, this is what Senator Vandenberg said.

The President pro tempore [that's him] finds it necessary .

. . before announcing his decision, to state again that he is

not passing on the merits of the poll-tax issue nor is he

passing on the desirability of a much stronger cloture rule

in determining this point of order. The President pro tempore

is not entitled to consult his own predilections or his own

convictions in the use of this authority. He must act in his

capacity as an officer of the Senate, under oath to enforce

its rules as he finds them to exist, whether he likes them or

not. Of all the precedents necessary to preserve, this is the

most important of them all. Otherwise, the preservation of

any minority rights for any minority at any time would become

impossible.

Senator Vandenberg continued:

The President pro tempore is a sworn agent of the law as he

finds the law to be. Only the Senate has the right to change

the law. The President pro tempore feels that he is entitled

particularly to underscore this axiom in the present instance

because the present circumstances themselves bring it to such

bold and sharp relief.

He further stated, again referring to himself:

In his capacity as a Senator, the President pro tempore

favors the passage of this anti-poll-tax measure. He has

similarly voted on numerous previous occasions. In his

capacity as President pro tempore believes that the rules

of the Senate should permit cloture upon the pending

motion to take up the anti-poll-tax measure, but in his

capacity as President pro tempore, the senior Senator from

Michigan is bound to recognize what he believes to be the

clear mandate of the Senate rules and the Senate

precedents; namely that no such authority presently

exists.

So, again, Senator Vandenberg says that he believes the rules of the Senate should be changed to permit cloture on the pending motion to take up the antipoll-tax measure, but he is bound to recognize those rules. He cannot rule against what the rules clearly provide.

Senator Vandenberg then went on to say:

If the Senate wishes to cure this impotence it has the

authority, the power, and the means to do so. The President

pro tempore of the Senate does not have the authority, the

power, or the means to do so except as he arbitrarily takes

the law into his own hands. This he declines to do in

violation of his oath. If he did so, he would feel that the

what might be deemed temporary advantage by some could become

a precedent which ultimately, in subsequent practice, would

rightly be condemned by all.

I want to emphasize Senator Vandenberg's point for our colleagues. In the view of that great Senator, it would have been a violation of his oath of office to change the Senate rules by fiat; to rule, as Presiding Officer, contrary to the words of the Senate rules, even though he personally agreed with the proposition that the rule needed to be changed. Senator Vandenberg's ruling was a doubly difficult one because it left the Senate with no means of cutting off debate on the motion to proceed to a measure. The Senate then voted to change the rule a year or so later, with Senator Vandenberg's support, to allow for cutting off debate on the motion to proceed.

Senator Vandenberg's words and his example are highly relevant to us today. The majority leader's tactic to have the Presiding Officer by decree, by fiat amend our rules by exercising the so-called nuclear option is wrong. It has always been wrong. And the Senate has rejected it in the past.

I want to simply read that one last line of Senator Vandenberg one more time:

In his capacity as a Senator, the President pro tempore

[Senator Vandenberg] favors the passage of the anti-poll-tax

measure [before him].

He has voted for it on similar occasions, he said.

In his capacity as President pro tempore [he] believes the

rules of the Senate should permit cloture on the pending

motion to take up the . . . measure. But . . .

and this is the ``but'' which everybody in this Chamber should think about--

in his capacity as President pro tempore the senior Senator

from Michigan is bound to recognize what he believes to be

the clear mandate of the Senate rules and the Senate

precedents; namely that no such authority presently exists.

For him to rule as President pro tempore against the clear meaning of rule XXII and our rules would be to take the law, the rules, into his own hands. Senator Vandenberg was not about to do that.

Rule XXII is clear. It takes 60 votes to end debate on any measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate. It does not make an exception for nomination of judges. The nuclear option is not an interpretation of rule XXII. It runs head long into the words of rule XXII and our rules. We in this body are the custodians of a great legacy. The unique Senate legacy can be lost if we start down the road of amending our rules by fiat of a Presiding Officer. We are going to be judged by future generations for what we do here this week. Arthur Vandenberg has been judged by history as well. If you want to know what the verdict of history is relative to Arthur Vandenberg, look up when we leave this Chamber at Arthur Vandenberg's portrait in the Senate reception room alongside of just six other giants for more than 215 years of Senate history.

As the present-day custodians of the great Senate tradition, we should uphold that tradition by rejecting an attempt to change the rules by arbitrary decree of the Presiding Officer instead of by the process in our rules for changing our rules. We must reject that attempt to rule by fiat instead of by duly adopted rules of the Senate. In that way, we will pass on to those who follow us a Senate that is enhanced, not diminished, by what we do here this week.

Mr. President, as we commemorate National Police Week, I would like to recognize the courageous

men and women who serve our families and communities as law enforcement officers. I would also like to honor the memory of those who gave their lives in the line of duty. These officers, and their families, have paid the ultimate sacrifice for the safety of others.

The first National Police Week was celebrated in 1962 when President John F. Kennedy signed an Executive Order designating May 15th as Peace Officers Memorial Day and the week in which that date falls as ``Police Week.'' The weeklong tribute to our Nation's local, State and Federal police officers honors those who died in the line of duty and those who continue to serve and protect us every day at great personal risk.

According to the National Law Enforcement Memorial Fund, 1,649 law enforcement officers have been killed in the line of duty in the last 10 years. In 2004 alone, 153 officers lost their lives, including 7 from Michigan. As in past years, the names of these officers have been permanently engraved on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial along side more than 17,000 others.

We can further honor the sacrifices of these brave men and women by passing important legislation to support our law enforcement officers. That is why I have joined Senator Biden as a cosponsor of his COPS Reauthorization Act. The COPS program was created in 1994 and is designed to assist State and local law enforcement agencies in hiring additional police officers to reduce crime through the use of community policing. Nationwide, the COPS program has awarded more than $11 billion in grants, resulting in the hiring of 118,000 additional police officers. Unfortunately, authorization for the COPS program was permitted to expire at the end of fiscal year 2000. Although the program has survived through continued annual appropriations, its funding has been significantly cut. The COPS Reauthorization Act would continue the COPS program for another 6 years at a funding level of $1.15 billion per year, nearly double the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2005. Among other things, this funding would allow State and local governments to hire an additional 50,000 police officers and improve their ability to analyze crime data and DNA evidence. At a time when we are asking more of our police departments than ever before, I believe we should be devoting more resources to the COPS program, not less.

Supporting our law enforcement officers also requires that we take up and pass common sense legislation to help keep them safe while they carry out their duties. Shootings have been the leading cause of death for law enforcement officers over the last ten years and more can be done to keep powerful weapons out of the hands of violent criminals. We should listen to law enforcement groups like the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, and the National Fraternal Order of Police which have called for reauthorization of the 1994 assault weapons ban. In addition we should be working to pass legislation to close loopholes that allow potential criminals to buy dangerous weapons like the Five-Seven armor- piercing handgun. Our law enforcement community deserves no less.

In honor of their memories, the names of law enforcement officers from Michigan who died in the line of duty during 2004 are:

Officer Matthew E. Bowens of Detroit, died February 16, 2004;

Officer Gary Cooper Davis of Bloomfield Township, died May 13, 2004;

Officer Jennifer T. Fettig of Detroit, died February 16, 2004;

Deputy Sheriff Perry Austin Fillmore of Clinton County, died March 27, 2004;

Deputy Sheriff John Kevin Gunsell of Otsego County, died September 12, 2004;

Officer Mark Anthony Sawyers of Sterling Heights, died June 5, 2004; and

Detective John Raymond Weir of Sault Ste. Marie, died November 7, 2004.

Mr. President, the surface transportation reauthorization bill that was reported out of the Environment and Public Works committee increased Michigan's rate of return on all highway funds apportioned to States to 92 percent of our share of contributions to the highway account of the highway trust fund. However, a significant change in the funding formula was made through a substitute offered on the Senate floor which resulted in over $8 billion in apportioned highway funds being added to the bill to help certain States, including some donor States. The rate of return for all States on that $8 billion ranges from 37 percent to 550 percent. Under the substitute bill, Michigan receives the lowest rate of return of all States on the distribution of that new money. Only 12 States have a rate of return on this new money that is below 90 percent.

In recognition of Michigan's disproportionately low share of the new funding, the mangers gave assurances that corrective measures would be considered before the bill was passed by the Senate.

While a solution has not been identified yet, I would appreciate the assurances of the managers that in conference they will make every effort to address and correct this disproportionate treatment.

Mr. President, funding for transportation infrastructure such as roads, bridges and border crossings is a sound investment that increases the mobility of people and goods, enhances economic competitiveness, reduces traffic congestion, and improves air quality. Those improvements in transportation infrastructure are critical to our States, and the Federal highway money that States receive is critical for funding them. In addition, few Federal investments have as large and immediate an impact on job creation and economic growth as transportation infrastructure. The Department of Transportation estimates that every $1 billion in new Federal investment creates more than 47,500 jobs.

Unfortunately, the formula that distributes Federal highway funds to States is antiquated and inequitable. Historically, about 20 States, including Michigan, have been ``donor'' States, sending more gas tax dollars to the highway trust fund in Washington than are returned in transportation infrastructure spending. The remaining 30 States, known as ``donee'' States, have received more transportation funding than they paid into the highway trust fund.

This unfair practice began in 1956 when small States and large Western States banded together to develop a formula for distributing Federal highway dollars that advantaged themselves over the remaining States. Once that formula was in place, they have tenaciously defended it.

At the beginning, there was some legitimacy to the concept that large, low-population, and predominately Western States need to get more funds than they contributed to the system. It was the only way that we could build a national interstate highway system. However, there is no justification today for any State getting more than its fair share. With the national interstate system completed, the formulas used to determine how much a State will receive from the highway trust are simply unfair.

Each time the highway bill has been reauthorized, I, along with my colleagues from the other donor States, have fought to correct this inequity in highway funding. Through these battles, some progress has been made. For instance, in 1978, Michigan was getting around 75 cents back on our Federal gas tax dollar. The 1991 bill brought us up to approximately 80 cents per dollar, and the 1998 bill guaranteed a 90.5- cent minimum return for each State.

Last year, we believed we had another significant victory when the Senate passed a bill that would have given donor States 95 cents on the dollar in the final year of the bill. Unfortunately, that bill died in conference due to the President's veto threat and his unwillingness to accept the funding levels in either the House or Senate bill.

This year's legislation, however, would give donor States just 92 percent of their highway trust fund contributions by 2009. Although that is a small step in the right direction of closing the equity gap, we still have a long way to go to achieve fairness for Michigan and other donor States.

This bill is also a setback from last year's bill because it provides fewer overall transportation dollars. Last year, the Senate wisely passed a bill that would have pumped $318 billion into our transportation systems over 6 years. This year, the Senate has reduced that funding down to $295 billion. That is more than the House-passed bill of $284 billion but still less than what is needed.

Michigan's rate of return would go from 90.5 percent to 92 percent immediately and remain at 92 percent for the full 5 years of this bill. Under this bill Michigan would get an annual average funding level of $1.134 billion which represents a 28-percent gain over TEA-21.

We have made progress in this bill compared to current law in the ongoing fight for equity for donor States. I will continue to fight in the future, as I have in the past, looking toward full equity for Michigan. I recognize, however, that we have reduced the inequity a little more in each previous reauthorization bill, and we do so in this bill as well. This bill will bring billions of desperately needed dollars to States across the country. It will improve our Nation's transportation infrastructure and create millions of American jobs, and therefore I will support it, although its steps toward equity and fairness are very tiny indeed.

Mr. President, since the reintroduction of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, many law enforcement and community groups around the country have publicly stated their opposition to the bill. In Michigan alone, the bill is opposed by organizations including the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police, the League of Women Voters of Michigan, the Michigan Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, and local chapters of the Million Mom March.

Law enforcement and community groups oppose the misnamed ``Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act'' because it would significantly weaken the legal rights of gun violence victims. The bill would provide members of the gun industry with legal protections not enjoyed by other industries and deprive many gun violence victims with legitimate cases of their day in court.

Two former Directors of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms have added their voices to the already considerable and growing opposition to this bill. In a letter to Congress, former ATF Directors Stephen Higgins and Rex Davis state that the gun industry immunity legislation would threaten the ATF's ability to effectively enforce our Nation's gun laws. Specifically, they cite provisions in the bill that would likely block the ATF from pursuing administrative proceedings ``to revoke a gun dealer's federal firearm license if the dealer supplies guns to criminals or other prohibited buyers'' and ``to prevent the importation of non-sporting firearms used frequently in crimes.'' Later in the letter, former Directors Higgins and Davis state:

We know from experience how important it is that ATF be

able to enforce our nation's gun laws to prevent firearms

from being obtained by terrorists, other criminals, and the

gun traffickers who supply them. To protect our citizens from

the scourge of gun violence Congress should be strengthening

our laws and increasing ATF's resources and ability to

enforce those laws. To handcuff ATF, as this bill does, will

only serve to shield corrupt gun sellers, and facilitate

criminals and terrorists who seek to wreak havoc with deadly

weapons. To take such anti-law enforcement actions in the

post-9/11 age, when we know that suspected terrorists are

obtaining firearms, and may well seek them from irresponsible

gun dealers, is nothing short of madness.

Combined, former Directors Higgins and Davis have more than two decades of experience in leading the ATF. We should recognize their extensive knowledge of gun violence issues and follow their advice. Instead of providing a single industry with broad immunity, we should be protecting the legal rights of gun violence victims and enhancing the effectiveness of our law enforcement agencies.

I ask unanimous consent that a list of some of the law enforcement and community organizations opposing this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to The Islamic Center of America, one of the first Islamic institutions in North America. On May 12, the Center will celebrate the completion of its new mosque complex in Dearborn, which will have the distinction of being the largest mosque in the United States. The festivities will continue with a grand banquet to be held on May 14. These events will bring together Muslims, as well as many others, from Michigan and around the country.

The Islamic Center of America traces its origin to the 1940s when Muslim immigrants from Lebanon and Syria began settling in Detroit and thus sought to bring a religious leader from the Middle East to the Detroit area to serve their community. A young author and scholar, Imam Mohammed Jawas Chirri, was the choice, arriving from Lebanon in February 1949. When the newly-formed Islamic Center Foundation Society was established in 1954, Imam Chirri became its new leader and soon after they decided to build a new religious center.

In his efforts to raise funds for the new center, Imam Chirri visited Egypt in 1959 and successfully secured support for the project. The Society purchased land owned by the Ford Motor Company located on Joy Road and Greenfield in Detroit. On September 20, 1963, the Islamic Center of America first opened its doors. The building consisted of a large domed prayer room, lecture hall, kitchen, offices, and two classrooms. Following the opening of the mosque, families of the Islamic Center began to move into the area. By 1967, the Center had already outgrown

this space. Additional classrooms, an enlarged social hall, and a minaret were added to serve the growing membership.

In 1997, Imam Hassan Al-Qazwini, his wife and their three children moved from California to Detroit to join The Islamic Center of America. Under his leadership and guidance, the Center has continued to flourish. Outgrowing the location on Joy Road, the Center began construction of a new religious center on Ford Road in Dearborn in 1999, near the Center's existing grade school, the Muslim American Youth Academy. The new mosque, which is located along a stretch of Ford Road that is home to several churches, including St. Sarkis Armenian Apostolic Church, St. Clement Ohridski Orthodox Church, Warrendale Community Church, St. Thomas Aquinas Roman Catholic Church, and Prince of Peace Lutheran Church, which is also home to People of the Book Arab Christian Church, will be the largest in the United States. At an estimated cost of between $8,000,000 and $10,000,000, the new mosque complex will accommodate 1,000 individuals at prayer time, and will house a large auditorium, social hall, and 14 additional rooms for the school.

I know my colleagues join me in congratulating The Islamic Center of America on this significant achievement and in recognizing its many years of service to the Muslim American community in Michigan.

Mr. President, two separate accidental shootings in Detroit on April 22 of this year left one 13-year-old boy dead and a 9- year-old boy critically wounded. These tragedies should remind us again that much more must be done to prevent access to guns by children.

According to published reports, both of these shootings involved children playing with guns inside their own homes. In both cases, the guns accidentally discharged and shot the victim in the head. In reference to the accidental shooting of the 9-year-old boy, Lieutenant James Tolbert of the Detroit Police Department commented, ``This is an unfortunate and needless incident that would have been prevented if people would make sure that a weapon in the home is secure and out of reach.'' In addition, Lieutenant Tolbert suggested that similar shootings could be prevented through the use of trigger locks or the storage of ammunition separate from the gun.

Recent research supports Lieutenant Tolbert's suggestions. A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that the application of responsible gun storage measures can significantly reduce the risk of unintentional shooting or suicide by minors using a gun. According to the study, when ammunition in the home is locked up, the risk of such injuries is reduced by 61 percent. Simply storing ammunition separately from the gun reduces such occurrences by more than 50 percent.

According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, teenagers and children are involved in more than 10,000 accidental shootings in which close to 800 people die each year. Reducing the number of accidental shootings involving children and teenagers requires that commonsense gun storage measures be adopted.

During the 108th Congress, I joined with 69 of my colleagues in voting for Senator Boxer's trigger lock amendment. Senator Boxer's amendment would have required that all handguns sold by a dealer come with a child safety device, such as a lock, a lock box, or technology built into the gun itself that would increase the security of the weapon while in storage. Although the underlying gun industry immunity bill to which this amendment was attached was later defeated, the support for Senator Boxer's proposal is clear.

Requiring that guns be stored in a responsible manner could have prevented many of the accidental shootings we have seen in Detroit and around the country. I am hopeful that Congress will work to limit children's access to guns so that fewer families will have to endure the loss of their child because of a preventable accident.

Mr. President, this budget reflects the wrong priorities for America. It is way out of touch with working families in Michigan and across the United States. It does not reflect their needs and goals, such as improved education and increased access to health care, but it burdens them with increasing debt. At the same time, this budget continues to cut taxes mainly for the wealthiest Americans at the expense of our nation's fiscal health.

Fundamentally, this budget continues this administration's policies that have led to the deepest deficit and debt in American history. For that reason alone it should be defeated. This administration's policies have taken us from record surpluses to record deficits. The deficit for this year alone is $427 billion. This budget would increase the deficit next year.

Continued deficits will mean rising long-term interest rates and slower economic growth. Continued deficits will make it more expensive to buy a house, pay for college, or pay off credit card debt. Alan Greenspan recently warned that, if left unchecked, deficits ``would cause the economy to stagnate or worse.'' Continued deficits will also mean the continued use of the Social Security trust fund to cover some of the funding shortfall.

The President's tax cuts are a major cause of the deficits, yet this resolution would add $70 billion more in tax breaks. Three-quarters of those tax breaks are for the wealthiest 3 percent of Americans, who are earning more than $200,000 a year.

Not only is this budget fiscally reckless, it is dishonest. Republicans claim the budget would cut the deficit in half over the next 5 years, but they simply leave out several major expenses, including the essential cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; the cost of the personnel added to the Army and Marines; and the cost of reforming the Alternative Minimum Tax which otherwise would increase the burden on middle income families.

To conceal further the damage it does to the Nation's fiscal outlook, this budget uses 5-year projections instead of the customary 10-year numbers. Hidden just beyond the 5-year budget window is the exploding cost of the tax cuts and their growing effect on the deficit.

To return to the path of fiscal discipline, we need to reinstate ``pay-as-you-go'' rules that would require both entitlement spending increases and tax cuts to be fully paid for or face a 60-vote point of order in the Senate. The ``pay-as-you-go'' rules were successful in the 1990s and would be successful again in restraining the deficit without unduly harming critical public services. The majority has opposed reinstating these rules because they don't want to be forced to pay for new tax cuts.

The budget plan that is before the Congress is a huge missed opportunity. We could be debating a budget today that addresses our Nation's most pressing problems, such as the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs, inadequate education, and the 45 million Americans without health insurance.

Instead, this budget makes some problems worse. In the Senate-passed budget resolution, we were able to defeat proposed cuts to Medicaid, and cuts to the health care program for millions of children, pregnant women, elderly and the disabled. However, this conference report still proposes $10 billion in Medicaid cuts over the next 5 years. It is unconscionable for this administration and this Congress to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans by cutting health care for the most vulnerable Americans.

This budget also weakens environmental protection by providing for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We have a responsibility to promote a balanced energy plan that invests in America's future and protects our environment, not one that damages our protected lands.

In summary, this budget gives massive and fiscally irresponsible tax cuts mainly to the wealthiest Americans while failing to address our real needs. Instead of investing in America, this budget indebts America for years to come. These are the wrong priorities for America, and I cannot support this budget.

Mr. President, on Friday, April 22, a true American hero was laid to rest in Arlington National Cemetery. Joe Beyrle of Muskegon, MI, was a paratrooper in the 101st Division on D-Day in World War II. His capture by the Germans and his heroic escape to fight with the Russian Army on the Eastern Front, making him the only American soldier to fight with both the United States and Russian armies against Nazi Germany, have been chronicled in a wonderful book by retired Army Colonel Thomas Taylor called The Simple Sounds of Freedom.

It was my privilege to speak at the burial ceremony for Joe Beyrle. I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, as in previous years, I would like to honor the memory of the victims of the Armenian genocide. This year marks the 90th anniversary of the brutal campaign to eliminate Armenians from the Turkish Ottoman Empire.

April 24 was chosen as the day of remembrance because on that date in 1915, more than 5,000 Armenians including civic leaders, intellectuals, writers, priests, scientists, and doctors were systematically rounded up and murdered. The systematic and intentional killing continued until 1923, leaving nearly 1.5 million Armenians dead.

There are those who attempt to deny that this atrocity ever occurred. But there is no denying the overwhelming historical record and eyewitness accounts that documented the appalling events of 1915-23, which occurred during the time of the Ottoman Empire. The United States Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Henry Morgenthau, stated at the time that ``When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this well, and, in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact . . . I am confident that the whole history of the human race contains no such horrible episode as this.''

The annual remembrance of the Armenian genocide is not a condemnation of our ally, the present day Republic of Turkey. But, our mutual interest with our NATO partner and our friendship with, and respect for, the Turkish people are not reasons to ignore historical fact. Nobel Laureate writer Elie Wiesel has said that the denial of genocide constitutes a ``double killing'' for it seeks to rewrite history by absolving the perpetrators of violence while ignoring the suffering of the victims.

During my time in the Senate, I have spoken about the Armenian Genocide many times. It is important that we take time to remember and honor the victims, and pay respect to the survivors who are still with us. In addition, we must reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that history is not repeated. This is the highest tribute we can pay to the victims of any genocide.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to honor the memory of the 1.5 million Armenian genocide victims by recognizing that there are still those in the world who will stop at nothing to perpetuate campaigns of hate, intolerance, and unthinkable violence. We must do all we can to stop atrocities, like those in the Darfur region of Sudan, from occurring as well as continue to provide adequate recovery aid to survivors. In doing so, we will truly honor the memory of genocide victims and fulfill our responsibilities as a world leader.

Mr. President, I want to discuss the nomination of John Negroponte to be the first Director of National Intelligence. This is a new position created by Congress as a key element of intelligence reform after the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and after the many failures we saw concerning intelligence on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.

I want to discuss one particular aspect of the problems we had with the intelligence community, and how I hope Ambassador Negroponte will improve upon that situation.

In the course of conducting oversight of the executive branch, Congress requires information and documents produced by the executive branch, including from the intelligence community. This is especially true in cases where Congress, or members of Congress, are conducting oversight for which they are responsible.

Unfortunately, it has been disturbingly difficult to obtain information and documents from this administration on a number of serious issues and from a number of agencies, including from the intelligence community, as well as from the Defense and Justice Departments.

The only conclusion I can draw from my experience in seeking information and documents from this administration as part of my oversight responsibilities is that too often they have not cooperated fully or appropriately.

Let me turn to some specific examples. Each year, the Armed Services Committee holds a hearing with the senior leaders of the intelligence community on worldwide threats. After the hearings, members write questions for the record, and the answers are made part of the official hearing record.

Last year, on March 9, 2004, the Armed Services Committee held its annual worldwide threat hearing with the Director of Central Intelligence or DCI, George Tenet, and the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Admiral Lowell Jacoby. But the CIA did not answer all the questions for the record until one year later, after I brought this delay to the attention of the new DCI, Porter Goss.

In June 2003, as the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, I initiated a minority staff inquiry into the pre-war intelligence on Iraq, and the use of that intelligence by the administration. In order to conduct this inquiry, it was necessary to request many documents from the intelligence community, as well as from the Defense Department.

Although the intelligence community provided some documents, they stonewalled other requests. For example, on April 9, 2004, I wrote to Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, requesting the declassification of three sets of briefing charts produced by the Office of Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith concerning the Iraq- al Qaeda relationship. The charts contained intelligence that only the intelligence community could declassify.

I knew that one slide, which had been declassified previously at my request, was highly critical of the intelligence community's assessment of the Iraq-al Qaeda issue, and that it had been shown to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and later to the staffs of the Office of the Vice President and the National Security Council, but that it had not been shown to DCI Tenet when he was briefed.

On July 6th, I received a letter from Stanley Moskowitz, the Director of Congressional Affairs at the CIA. His letter said that in response to my April 9 request, the ``declassification review of the charts is underway and we hope to have an answer to you shortly. We apologize for the delay.''

However, although his staff told my staff that they were working on the request, and later that they had completed the review, the documents were not forthcoming, nor was an explanation for the delay. I finally received the documents earlier this month, after the current Director of Central Intelligence, Porter Goss, provided them.

In another example, on April 29, 2004, I requested the declassification of specific portions of three finished intelligence reports from the CIA concerning the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. I requested that they respond by May 10th, but they did not reply for 2 months.

In that same July 6th letter from Stanley Moskowitz, it said that, in response to my April 29 request, ``the declassification review is underway and we hope to have an answer to you shortly.''

However, the CIA did not provide an answer ``shortly.'' It did not provide any answer until after Director Tenet had left the CIA, and I had brought the situation to the attention of the new management team. The declassified materials were finally provided on April 6, 2005, nearly a year after the request.

I have had similar problems with obtaining documents from the Department of Defense. I made a request for documents on November 25, 2003, and I am still awaiting documents from that request.

In that case, the Defense Department said it was withholding some of the documents to determine whether they were covered by executive privilege. It did so until late March, when it finally provided some of the documents, 16 months after my original request. I would note that it is unclear what possible executive privilege concern could exist for these documents, some of which were unclassified talking points to be used by Pentagon officials.

In the same case, the Defense Department originally told me they were withholding some documents containing intelligence information that was ``Originator Controlled,'' also known as ORCON. The Department promised me that they would provide any documents cleared for release by the CIA. But instead of doing so, they simply swept all the CIA-cleared documents into their executive privilege review.

The new leadership of the CIA and the Intelligence Community, Porter Goss, is adopting a more responsive and responsible attitude toward congressional requests for information and documents than did his predecessor.

After I brought these delays to his attention at a hearing in March, he said he would look into the matter and ensure that the information was provided. And he did what he promised. On April 6th, he wrote me a letter as a follow-up to providing me the materials that had been delayed so long.

I would like to quote from the last paragraph of his letter:

You should have received answers to these requests months

ago. There is no excuse for such delays. I have conveyed to

my staff that this is not how the Agency will treat requests.

That is the right approach to take. After all the frustrating delays and stonewalling, it is a welcome breath of fresh air. And I hope the window stays open for the whole Intelligence Community.

This brings me back to the nomination of Ambassador Negroponte to be the new leader of the Intelligence Community. At his nomination hearing before the Intelligence Committee, I asked him about this problem of stonewalling, ignoring, or delaying on requests for information and documents. I asked him if he would ensure that the intelligence community provides timely and responsive answers to such requests, and he basically said he would look into the situation.

Frankly, I was hoping he would have a more robust and positive answer, and that he would commit to taking steps, if confirmed, to ensure that the intelligence community is fully responsive in a timely manner to congressional requests for information and documents.

However, I am hopeful that when Ambassador Negroponte does look into the matter, he will be more responsive, in light of the law we just passed. He has a responsibility to the Nation, to the Congress, and to the people--not just to the President.

I have some of the correspondence outlining the problems I have described, and I would ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, combating violent crime, especially gun crime, requires that our law enforcement agencies are adequately staffed and equipped. I have been a strong supporter of the Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, program. The COPS Program has been critical to our Nation's law enforcement community since its creation in 1994, and I am pleased to join Senator Biden as a cosponsor of the COPS Reauthorization Act.

The COPS Program was designed to assist State and local law enforcement agencies in hiring additional police officers to reduce crime through the use of community policing. In Michigan alone, 514 local and State law enforcement agencies have received more than $220 million in grants through the COPS Program since its creation. These grants have improved the safety of communities by putting more than 3,300 law enforcement officers on Michigan streets and by supporting other important programs. Nationwide, the COPS Program has awarded more than $11 billion in grants, resulting in the hiring of 118,000 additional police officers.

In my home State, the Detroit Police Department, DPD, used a COPS grant to hire additional officers that were needed to implement a 5- year community policing plan. Prior to the COPS grant award, the DPD lacked sufficient personnel to effectively cover high crime areas. The community policing plan placed teams of officers in neighborhoods to combat rising crime rates and work with residents to develop crime reduction strategies. The plan resulted in a drop in the number of reported violent crimes as well as improved police-community relations. The success of the Detroit Police Department illustrates the important role that COPS grants play in the safety of communities around the country.

Unfortunately, authorization for the COPS Program was permitted to expire at the end of fiscal year 2000. Although the program has survived through the annual appropriations process, it has received significant funding cuts. In fact, the Fiscal Year 2005 Omnibus Appropriations Act included only $606 million for the COPS Program, $142 million below the amount appropriated in 2004. In addition, President Bush's fiscal year 2006 budget would completely eliminate the COPS hiring grants. Despite the important positive impact of the COPS Program in Detroit and across the country, the President justified his cuts by calling the program ``nonperforming'' and not having ``a record of demonstrating results.'' Our State and local law enforcement agencies know better and we should listen to them.

The COPS Reauthorization Act would continue the COPS Program for another 6 years at a funding level of $1.15 billion per year. This funding would allow State and local governments to hire an additional 50,000 police officers over the next 6 years. In addition, the bill would modernize the COPS Program by authorizing $350 million in law enforcement technology grants to assist police departments in acquiring new technologies for the analysis of crime data and the examination of DNA evidence, among other uses. The COPS Reauthorization Act would also build upon the accomplishments of the original COPS Program by authorizing $200 million in community prosecutor grants. These grants would be used to hire community prosecutors trained to work at the local and neighborhood level to prevent crime and improve relations with residents.

At a time when we are asking more of our police departments than ever before, I believe we should be devoting more resources to the COPS Program, not less. The increased threat of terrorism as well as the continuing epidemic of gun violence underscores the

need for more resources for our law enforcement agencies. Recognizing this, we must build upon the past success of the COPS Program and continue to work to provide police departments with the tools and resources they need to help keep our families and communities safe.