Floor Statements

Madam President, I join so many of my colleagues today to rise in sadness and horror at what happened in Virginia at Virginia Tech. To see the picture of one of the young women, who was allegedly slain, go on the TV screen and see her young beautiful face and realize her life has been taken and thinking of her family and then magnifying this at least 30 times, it is almost too much to bear. This is a terrible tragedy for all of us.

We pray and mourn for those who were lost. At times such as this, the only solace one can take is that God works in ways we don't understand. But I wish to add my condolences to those families who lost loved ones, pray for the recovery of those who were injured, and to all the people of the Virginia Tech community, our hearts go out to you on this sad day.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to join our distinguished leader, my friend, Senator Reid, and to thank him and our whip, Senator Durbin, for their leadership and commitment to this body and to the American people.

Last November, the American people asked us to do three things: No. 1, change course in Iraq; No. 2, make middle-class families' lives a little better; and No. 3, oversee an administration that is out of touch and has had virtually no oversight for 6 years.

Over the past 100 days, we have made significant progress. Change, accountability, and oversight have become more than words; they have become our mission. We are demanding the change in Iraq that the American people want. The President is ordering us to send him a blank check to continue to fund a failed policy, no questions asked. In fact, anyone who asks questions, their integrity is often impugned. That is because the President thinks the only way to support our troops is to rubberstamp what he wants.

We in the Congress are keeping faith with the American people. We have passed a bill that funds our troops and at the same time changes our mission from policing a civil war to focusing on counterterrorism. We have worked on resolutions that offer alternatives to the President's head-in-the-sand policy in Iraq. We have held hearings to ask

the tough questions that have gone unasked over the past 4 years of the war. We have also made our country safer and more secure by implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations.

We have funded homeland security grant programs, improved communications for first responders, increased information-sharing among our intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and strengthened the visa waiver program while boosting civil liberties protections.

In the first 100 days, we also passed an increase in the minimum wage that will put real money into the pockets of hard-working individuals and families. A minimum wage increase was long overdue. While the costs of everyday life continue to rise, wages for the middle class and those aspiring to be middle class have not kept pace.

We passed a bill to open the hope of stem cell research for millions of families who suffer from debilitating diseases and, in the first 100 days, Congress has resumed one of its fundamental responsibilities-- oversight of the White House and the administration. From the Justice Department to the Defense Department, Democrats are asking tough questions that have needed to be asked.

On U.S. attorneys, our investigation--not in a partisan manner but bipartisan, both parties seeking the truth--continues, and we will work until we receive every document we need and until we have talked to all the key figures involved, whether they be in the Justice Department or the White House.

Already, we passed legislation that will make sure the Senate has a say in the confirmation of U.S. attorneys because we must put the finest people in these positions, not simply cronies. We cannot allow the deprofessionalization of the U.S. attorneys.

Our oversight also meant that when major failures were disclosed, such as the disgraceful treatment of our veterans at Walter Reed and at VA centers around the country, we did not let them get swept under the rug. We held hearings to get to the bottom of things and it is clear we need accountability from those who were in charge and we need to make changes in our veterans system so our veterans do not fall through the cracks again. There is no higher priority than giving our soldiers the medical care they need, and that is why we put over $4 billion in the supplemental appropriations bill for veterans health care. When it comes to our vets, money is no object. It never should be.

It only has been 100 days, but there are marked changes in the way this Congress is being run. We are not rubberstamping the President's failed agenda, unlike the previous Congress. We have accomplished a great deal and we know there is a lot more to do.

As we move forward, we hope our colleagues across the aisle will join us and the vast majority of the American people who are with us in forging a new direction for the country, especially when it comes to Iraq. Let us use the next 100 days to show we support the troops by providing them with the funding they need and the change in mission the situation requires.

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

Mr. President, if my colleague would yield to me.

Mr. President, I just want to thank our chair and leader on the Judiciary Committee for the amazing job he has done on the U.S. attorney's issue and on so many others. One of the things that has been lacking for 6 years in this administration is oversight. There has been virtually none.

As to what the chairman of the Judiciary Committee alluded to, in the U.S. attorney's area, it has been appalling what has happened, and again with no oversight. It has been on issue after issue after issue. So many of the things that we have begun to uncover, whether it is with the NSA wiretaps, whether it is with the security letters, whether it is with some of the other things going on, have been done under his watch.

I thank my colleague for his remarks and for the great job he has done.

Mr. President, I am proud to be a co-sponsor of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, and I commend my friend and colleague, Senator Kennedy, for his leadership and determination on this issue. We have tried for the better half of a decade to get this legislation passed, signed, and enacted into law. Today represents our strongest effort to date, and it is long past time that crimes based on hate be recognized and criminalized under Federal law. The need for Federal hate crimes legislation has been apparent for years as hate crimes know no State borders and--in part because their impacts often affect the very fabric of our society--they are a problem that affects all Americans.

This act sends the message that we will not tolerate acts of aggression and violence towards targeted communities or individuals who become victims of violence merely for being themselves. Perpetrators of this type of violence will now be subject to Federal prosecution under this act. Before we had to rely on the States to act, and some simply have failed to do enough to stem this type of criminal behavior. This act recognizes that hate crimes have national consequences and are not mere localized occurrences.

Put simply, a hate crime tends to impact an entire community, as opposed to being limited to the victim or the victim's family. It is a crime against a particular group, and must be treated as such. In essence, there are two crimes--one against he victim, and one against the victim's group or community. Some have asked, ``But aren't all crimes based on hate?'' No, they are not. Hate crimes are unique because they cut at the very fabric of our national values; they undermine shared

principles like tolerance and equal protection under the law, and in so doing, harm us all. It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to address this issue and arm prosecutors with the tools they need to seek justice, promote order and provide all American with equal protection under the law.

The framework of the Constitution provides a sound basis for our actions today--both the Commerce Clause and the Thirteenth Amendment are implicated by these crimes. The effects of hate crimes do not end at a State's border, but rather transcend those borders. These crimes implicate a citizen's ability to move and travel freely. Additionally, violence based on someone's race, religion, sexual orientation, or the other characteristics noted in the act are reminiscent of the ultimate hate crime--slavery. As such, the 13th Amendment allows for Federal action to remedy this problem. The courts have ruled time and time again that discrimination in housing and discrimination in contractual agreements could be remedied through Federal statutes promulgated under the authority of the Thirteenth Amendment. It matters not what the discrimination is based on, what matters is the, discrimination itself. In an attempt to rid the last vestiges of slavery from our society, the courts have allowed the 13th Amendment to be the basis of such legislation.

Let us be very clear, we are not criminalizing speech. Violent acts against an African American, a woman, or a Sikh because of who they are do not constitute free expression. Nor are we are criminalizing evil thoughts. We are only criminalizing action--harmful and violent action that cuts against our society and against the very meaning of what it is to be an American. Congress and local law enforcement are not becoming the ``thought-police.'' Rather, we are criminalizing the violent actions of closed-minded and hateful individuals.

In today's society, we see all too frequently violence based on the person's race, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristics. We must act to address these injustices. This is not about special rights to any particular group. Actually, it is quite the contrary. This is about equal rights. This is about going after those individuals who act on their harmful beliefs. By committing hate crimes, they are attempting to relegate certain people to second-class citizenship. They think they can do this through violence. But they are wrong, and this legislation is a forceful statement that this country will not tolerate this behavior.

The victims of these crimes have done nothing to bring on this violence. Because of these crimes, the victims' communities frequently live in fear. Unfortunately, these crimes are not few and far between. These crimes are all too common, and when committed, they send a shockwave that can be felt across the country. Matthew Shepard and James Byrd are just two of the many thousands of victims of hate crimes whose deaths horrified this country. Additionally, we mustn't forget the thousands of loyal and patriotic Americans, who after 9/11, were attacked by ruthless thugs, all because they ``looked'' like--or were-- Muslims or Arab Americans. We saw many of these attacks in New York, and let me say, those attacks were not just a New York problem, they were an American problem. Every State experienced similar violence in the months after 9/11, and that is one reason why Federal legislation is appropriate.

The Act not only makes hate crimes a Federal crime, but it also serves to benefit local police departments as well, considering they are the front line of defense and prevention. This Act delivers much needed financial assistance to local police departments who may be struggling to deal with the crimes. It will also assist them in helping the community which they protect.

The point is, that we should be protecting communities who are targets of this shameful violence, and this Act today marks a great step in that direction. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this Act and look forward to working with you all to see this Act gets passed and signed into law.

Mr. President, I am proud to be a co-sponsor of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, and I commend my friend and colleague, Senator Kennedy, for his leadership and determination on this issue. We have tried for the better half of a decade to get this legislation passed, signed, and enacted into law. Today represents our strongest effort to date, and it is long past time that crimes based on hate be recognized and criminalized under Federal law. The need for Federal hate crimes legislation has been apparent for years as hate crimes know no State borders and--in part because their impacts often affect the very fabric of our society--they are a problem that affects all Americans.

This act sends the message that we will not tolerate acts of aggression and violence towards targeted communities or individuals who become victims of violence merely for being themselves. Perpetrators of this type of violence will now be subject to Federal prosecution under this act. Before we had to rely on the States to act, and some simply have failed to do enough to stem this type of criminal behavior. This act recognizes that hate crimes have national consequences and are not mere localized occurrences.

Put simply, a hate crime tends to impact an entire community, as opposed to being limited to the victim or the victim's family. It is a crime against a particular group, and must be treated as such. In essence, there are two crimes--one against he victim, and one against the victim's group or community. Some have asked, ``But aren't all crimes based on hate?'' No, they are not. Hate crimes are unique because they cut at the very fabric of our national values; they undermine shared

principles like tolerance and equal protection under the law, and in so doing, harm us all. It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to address this issue and arm prosecutors with the tools they need to seek justice, promote order and provide all American with equal protection under the law.

The framework of the Constitution provides a sound basis for our actions today--both the Commerce Clause and the Thirteenth Amendment are implicated by these crimes. The effects of hate crimes do not end at a State's border, but rather transcend those borders. These crimes implicate a citizen's ability to move and travel freely. Additionally, violence based on someone's race, religion, sexual orientation, or the other characteristics noted in the act are reminiscent of the ultimate hate crime--slavery. As such, the 13th Amendment allows for Federal action to remedy this problem. The courts have ruled time and time again that discrimination in housing and discrimination in contractual agreements could be remedied through Federal statutes promulgated under the authority of the Thirteenth Amendment. It matters not what the discrimination is based on, what matters is the, discrimination itself. In an attempt to rid the last vestiges of slavery from our society, the courts have allowed the 13th Amendment to be the basis of such legislation.

Let us be very clear, we are not criminalizing speech. Violent acts against an African American, a woman, or a Sikh because of who they are do not constitute free expression. Nor are we are criminalizing evil thoughts. We are only criminalizing action--harmful and violent action that cuts against our society and against the very meaning of what it is to be an American. Congress and local law enforcement are not becoming the ``thought-police.'' Rather, we are criminalizing the violent actions of closed-minded and hateful individuals.

In today's society, we see all too frequently violence based on the person's race, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristics. We must act to address these injustices. This is not about special rights to any particular group. Actually, it is quite the contrary. This is about equal rights. This is about going after those individuals who act on their harmful beliefs. By committing hate crimes, they are attempting to relegate certain people to second-class citizenship. They think they can do this through violence. But they are wrong, and this legislation is a forceful statement that this country will not tolerate this behavior.

The victims of these crimes have done nothing to bring on this violence. Because of these crimes, the victims' communities frequently live in fear. Unfortunately, these crimes are not few and far between. These crimes are all too common, and when committed, they send a shockwave that can be felt across the country. Matthew Shepard and James Byrd are just two of the many thousands of victims of hate crimes whose deaths horrified this country. Additionally, we mustn't forget the thousands of loyal and patriotic Americans, who after 9/11, were attacked by ruthless thugs, all because they ``looked'' like--or were-- Muslims or Arab Americans. We saw many of these attacks in New York, and let me say, those attacks were not just a New York problem, they were an American problem. Every State experienced similar violence in the months after 9/11, and that is one reason why Federal legislation is appropriate.

The Act not only makes hate crimes a Federal crime, but it also serves to benefit local police departments as well, considering they are the front line of defense and prevention. This Act delivers much needed financial assistance to local police departments who may be struggling to deal with the crimes. It will also assist them in helping the community which they protect.

The point is, that we should be protecting communities who are targets of this shameful violence, and this Act today marks a great step in that direction. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this Act and look forward to working with you all to see this Act gets passed and signed into law.

Mr. President, first, I rise in strong and profound praise of my colleague from Iowa. He has led this fight dauntlessly, always being both dogged and smart. That is why we are where we are today.

I rise in support of S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Today, as we stand on the brink of scientific breakthroughs, we cannot let politics pull us backward. A modern nation

loses its greatness, its preeminence, when it turns its back on science. That is what history has shown.

Stem cell research is the key to hope for 100 million Americans and their families who suffer from debilitating diseases. Talk about it any way you want, spin it any way you want, talk about all these alternatives; the bottom line is very simple: A ``no'' vote is a vote against science, a vote against the millions who are anxiously awaiting a cure for diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries and other diseases and injuries.

Unfortunately, we all know someone with a disease such as diabetes, heart disease, Parkinson's, ALS or cancer who could benefit from embryonic stem cell research. Every one of us has looked into the eyes of somebody who needs help--in my case, a young mother with a little girl about 5 years old who had juvenile diabetes who said: Senator, the doctors tell me the odds are high that my child could be blind at age 20 if we don't do embryonic stem cell research. How can we say no to that mother and to that child? Scientists are on the cusp of making incredible progress through stem cell research, a process that has the potential to cure diseases that have been with us for centuries, such as diabetes and heart disease.

When their progress was stalled in 2001 when President Bush limited federally funded stem cell research to only 19 sources that are truly viable, every family who had hope was set back. With that Executive order, the President shut the door on hope for all those families.

With that one action, the President not only stopped current research in its tracks, he sent a message to future scientists that they should not pursue this line of work.

As they see a limited funding stream for the work they do, fewer and fewer graduates are specializing in this type of research, and those who are deeply committed to it tend to go overseas. That is not a great America--an America that turns its back on science and puts politics in its place. We want all the best minds in the country to be working together to find a cure for these debilitating diseases.

S. 5 would answer the prayers of millions of families. It would increase the number of stem cell lines that can be used by researchers who are funded by Federal grants.

These stem cell lines are not made from new embryos that would be created for the purpose of research. They would not be harvested from women, like some people think. These lines would be made from leftover embryos created by couples who were trying to conceive through in vitro fertilization but are not used and are going to be destroyed. With passage of this bill, those embryos could contribute to critical research instead of being thrown away.

Let's think about the good that having these new stem cells could do by looking at juvenile diabetes. As many as 3 million Americans have Type I diabetes, with over 13,000 children newly diagnosed each year. These children must be injected with insulin multiple times each day and prick their fingers to test their blood sugar as many as six times a day.

That doesn't have to be the reality forever. Researchers have already demonstrated they can produce insulin-producing cells from undifferentiated embryonic stem cells. This has the real potential to develop a cure for juvenile diabetes, providing relief to the 3 million Americans and their families who are burdened with the implications of the disease every day.

Without being able to use Federal funding for their research, innovative stem cell research is being relegated more and more to only those individuals and institutions that can afford it.

Because NIH-funded research activities have to be housed in different buildings from stem cell research labs, which has created enormous headaches and financial barriers for researchers in my State of New York and has hampered both research on stem cells and research using other methods, unless we vote yes on S. 5, we are not going to make progress.

This bill would provide enormous hope to growing numbers of Americans. It would accelerate the movement toward a cure for devastating diseases, while strengthening the rules on ethics that must be involved in this research. This is one of those issues that hits home more than anything else. Everyone knows a mother with Alzheimer's or a neighbor with diabetes. They are gut-wrenching situations.

What is most heartbreaking is to think the President's first veto was to stop us from alleviating all this terrible pain. I urge my colleagues to look into the eyes of a young child with juvenile diabetes, look into the eyes of a middle-aged couple who has a parent suffering from Alzheimer's. Don't say no to them.

I yield the floor, and I yield the remainder of my time back to the Senator from Iowa.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak as chairman of the Joint Economic Committee in terms of our Humphrey-Hawkins budget debate time.

Today, we are going to begin putting the Nation's fiscal house back in order and to get our economic policy priorities straight. I salute the chairman of the Budget Committee, the indefatigable Kent Conrad, for the great job he has done over the years in trying to get our country back on the right fiscal track.

For the last 6 years, we have been governed by a shallow economic strategy, guided by deep and indiscriminate tax cuts. The strategy has produced burgeoning deficits, mediocre economic performance, and a serious global trade imbalance. My colleagues and I on this side of the aisle have a different policy vision. We believe the middle class is the backbone of the country and that when we pursue policies to help the middle class feel confident about their economic future, we produce a strong economy, capable of meeting just about any challenge.

We have not had those kinds of policies or that kind of economy over the past 6 years. The economy went through the most prolonged jobs slump since the 1930s, as it struggled to recover from the 2001 recession. Then, while the economy was growing, it was not producing enough jobs. In the summer of 2003, job creation began to turn upward again but not as rapidly as we were used to in past economic recoveries. Something was still missing--growth in real wages.

In the past, increased productivity meant real wages increased. In recent years, American workers have continued to be remarkably productive. However, while our output per hour grew 18 percent from 2001 through 2006, after adjusting for inflation, workers' pay and benefits grew only by half as much--8.7 percent. That is serious stuff. When output goes up and workers only retain less than half of it, something is the matter.

Even that modest growth in compensation came much more from benefits than from wages. It is not that employers were becoming more generous in providing benefits. To the contrary, benefit costs have been increasing because health care insurance costs are rising, and employers have had to make contributions to restore the solvency of their pension plans. Those higher benefit costs squeezed take-home pay, but workers have not been getting more generous benefits in return. They are shouldering more of the burden for their health insurance, and their pensions remain in jeopardy.

So where have the benefits from economic growth been going? They have been going to profits and salaries and bonuses of top executives. Profits as a share of national income are at an alltime high, and incomes at the very top of the economic scale have been soaring. At the same time, middle-class families and families striving to get into the middle class have been struggling to get ahead.

I wish I could say businesses have been investing their profits to make the economy grow, but another remarkable feature of the current economic recovery is how slowly business investment is growing relative to profits. Business profits have been flush, yes, but business investment spending has been weak. There hasn't been any real trickle down from the President's huge tax cuts to the rest of the economy. We had a small growth spurt for a couple of years, but the most recent news paints a picture of an economy that is growing at a pace below its long-term sustainable potential.

The main results of the President's tax cuts have been, A, larger budget deficits, and B, reduced national savings. With less of our own savings, we are borrowing more from the rest of the world to support our current standard of living. The record current account deficit last year--the amount we had to borrow from the rest of the world to finance our trade deficit--was equal to a stunning 6.5 percent of the entire GDP; 6.5 percent of the GDP goes to financing our trade deficit. We are borrowing more than ever from the rest of the world. Those debts will be paid back with interest from the income of our children. The Federal Government is increasingly reliant on the rest of the world to buy our public debt, and who knows what kind of financial crisis would ensue if the rest of the world decided they no longer wanted to hold such vast quantities of U.S. debt. Even if they don't, the idea that we are saddling our children to repay this debt is not fair to them and not good for the future of America.

To conclude, it is no wonder that middle-class families do not give President Bush much credit for the economy. They are paying more for gas and utility bills. Their health insurance and prescription drug costs are rising much faster than their pay, and college tuition costs are through the roof. They see good manufacturing jobs disappearing and a wave of new competition from economies such as China and India. They are also less likely to support expanded trade because they sense that the Government is not on their side when it negotiates trade agreements, and they see that some of our largest trading partners regularly flout the rules of free trade. They see a Federal Government that doesn't pay its bills and is building up foreign debt that will be a burden on our children and our grandchildren.

I commend Senator Conrad for crafting a budget resolution that gets us started on the road to recovery from these misguided policies. There is much work to do, but we are off to a good start with this budget resolution.

I yield the floor.

Thank you for yielding. I am going to talk a lit bit about the U.S. attorneys in response to the comments that have been made today from the White House.

The bottom line is very simple, to paraphrase ``The Godfather'': The White House has made us an offer that we cannot accept. We cannot accept it very simply because it is no way to get to the truth.

Mr. Snow said today that the White House wants to get to the truth. Well, if they want to get to the truth, what is wrong with testimony under oath? Do we not have oaths to ensure that truth is given?

Karl Rove was mentioned by Mr. Snow himself at one point, who stated incorrectly Karl Rove's involvement and then corrected himself. No one is saying there was any prevarication there. But with so many misstatements that have been out there, so many corrections, doesn't it make sense to interview witnesses with a transcript, under oath?

Because if we do not, we will never get to the bottom of this. We Democrats want to resolve this issue quickly. We want to get the facts. We want to find out what went wrong--it is clearer and clearer that many things did--and correct them and move on.

But when the President gives an offer that does not allow the truth to be gotten--no oaths, no transcript, no public testimony--it does not serve the purpose of finding out what happened, resolving it quickly, in a fair and nonpartisan way, and then moving on.

I hope the White House would reconsider its offer, would be willing to negotiate--they have stated they have not--and then we can finally get to the bottom of the matter.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise, first of all, to support Senator Feinstein's bill, which I proudly have been a cosponsor of, and I urge all my colleagues to do the same. I wish to thank Senator Feinstein for being the first to discover this provision and for asking the right questions, which then set us on this journey about the U.S. attorneys.

Second, I wish to thank Senator Leahy, our leader in the Judiciary Committee on this issue, who has been stalwart in making sure we get to the truth.

Some have been content to casually dismiss the administration's actions relating to the firing of the eight U.S. attorneys as a comedy of errors at the Justice Department. Make no mistake about it, this is no comedy, this is a tragedy. It is a tragedy for eight public servants whose reputations have been wrongly trashed. It is a tragedy for the reputation of the Justice Department, as a whole, and for the Attorney General, in particular. Most importantly, however, it is a tragedy for public confidence in our system of justice.

How can people have faith when the documents show that in this Justice Department allegiance to party is apparently valued over loyalty to the rule of law? How can citizens not be cynical when it is clear the PATRIOT Act was cynically manipulated to bypass checks and balances?

We all know politics plays a role in the Justice Department, but it should be second to rule of law. On too many issues in this Justice Department, politics came first and rule of law came second.

Weeks ago, we suspected the provision we are correcting today was no more than a mechanism to allow end runs around the Senate and the people. The e-mails have proven our worst fears. This provision was apparently added to the PATRIOT Act not for efficiency or national security but to make it easier to install political loyalists. This is how Kyle Sampson, the former Chief of Staff to the Attorney General, described how the slipped-in PATRIOT Act should be manipulated:

By using these provisions we can give far less deference to

home State senators and thereby get (1) our preferred court

person appointed, and (2) do it far faster and more

efficiently at less political cost to the White House.

That is a memo to Harriet Miers.

That scheme was, of course, followed to install Karl Rove's former deputy in the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Here is another e-mail from Mr. Sampson:

My thoughts: 1. I think we should gum this to death: Ask

the Senators to give Tim a chance, meet with them, give him

some time in office to see how he performs. If they

ultimately say ``no, never,''--and the longer we can

forestall that the better--then we can tell them we will look

for other candidates, ask them for recommendations, evaluate

the recommendations, interview their candidates, and

otherwise run out the clock. All of this should be done in

``good faith,'' of course.

That is an astonishing breach of trust. That shows that, at least according to Mr. Sampson, this provision could be used to keep political appointees in office for a long time.

So there is no doubt we must pass this legislation, which provides-- and has always provided--for checks and balances on a runaway Justice Department. If there is proof that it was ever needed, it is the actions of the Justice Department in the last several months. I am especially amazed, given the proof that this secret midnight provision was willfully abused at the highest levels of the Justice Department, how anybody could not vote for Senator Feinstein's legislation. This is the latest example of an executive branch run amuck, the most recent evidence of a Justice Department almost drunk with its own power and with little regard for checks and balances.

That is why our work will not be done when we pass this bill in a few hours. It is not enough to reform the law, we must repair the Justice Department.

Finally, last night we received 3,000 pages of documents. Some in the administration have started to spin this: See, they were fired for cause. But if you look at these documents, that is not the case. They read like an ``Alice in Wonderland'' tale. There are thousands of pages of stock documents, and we still have no real idea why many of these fine men and women were fired.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. President, the documents leave us scratching our heads in wonderment as to why they were fired. One e-mail shows that days before the purge, the Deputy Attorney General was uncertain about the reasons why Nevada U.S. attorney Daniel Bogden was fired: ``I'm still a little skittish about Bogden.''

The documents show that far from exhibiting performance problems, New Mexico U.S. attorney David Iglesias is highly praised by officials in Washington and even considered for promotion. Similarly, Washington U.S. attorney John McKay is also praised 3 months before he was fired. San Diego U.S. attorney Carol Lam was strongly defended by the Department on her pursuit of immigration cases months before she was fired. Finally, another U.S. attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, widely considered to be one of the finest and most apolitical prosecutors in the country, was ranked in the middle tier and described as ``undistinguished.'' Meanwhile, two of the fired prosecutors were only a short time ago ranked in the top tier.

The more we dig, the deeper the hole it seems the Justice Department is in, with still no clear explanation as to why these fine prosecutors were fired. Make no mistake about it, we will get to the bottom of this.

This legislation is an early step, but we cannot rest until we have reformed the Department's ways and restored confidence, so that when people enter Justice Department buildings and see the eagle perched with arrows in her claws, it means justice and the rule of law, without fear or favor.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 5 minutes to speak as in morning business and that the time to be charged on our side.

Mr. President, I rise to respond to the President's remarks he made about a half hour ago about the problems we are facing with the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.

The President had a press conference, basically, where he said he wanted to cooperate and he wanted the information to come out. That is good news because that is what we all want. This is such a serious issue. The integrity of the U.S. attorneys, the integrity of the Justice Department has been hurt, and we must restore it.

It is good to see the President understands we have to do something, we must restore integrity to what is the foundation of this country, the rule of law, without fear or favor. So when the President began to speak, I felt quite good. But when we learned of what he has proposed, it can only be called very disappointing because while he has made an offer that appears to be cooperative, when you look at it closely--you do not even have to look at it that closely--the cooperation is minimal.

Let me show you why. The President has said we could interview--his words, we could interview--some of his high-level staff. However, the interview will be held in private, not in public. There will be no oath or sworn testimony. There will not even be a transcript.

The interview will be as if it occurred in a darkened room, and then there is no record of what happened. If at these interviews the statement of, say, Karl Rove or Harriet Miers contradicts statements given before, there is nothing that can be done about it. We cannot get to the bottom, we cannot get to the truth. What is the objection to having a transcript if there is nothing to hide, nothing wrong with the transcript? What is the objection to an oath? If there is nothing to hide and everyone is telling the truth, there should be no objection to an oath. What is the objection to having this discussion in public? Because if we want to restore the integrity of the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Justice Department, that cannot be done by someone whispering to someone else in a back and darkened room. It must be done in public.

Any lawyer will tell you that the offer made by the President is not going to get the truth. No transcript, no oath, no public testimony-- what are we hiding? The bottom line is, if the President wants the truth to come out, then he would have testimony given in a far more full and open way. It seems as if the President wants to appear to be cooperative but not really cooperate. So we will have to go back and come up with a better plan because this plan does not work.

The President has said he will give us memos, but the only memos we will get are memos we have already received, with only a few exceptions because the President has said any memos within the White House are off limits. If Aide A sends an e-mail to Counsel B, and it says, ``Let's fire U.S. Attorney C because they are doing an investigation we don't like, but find another justification, another reason,'' and then the counsel writes to the Justice Department, ``We are firing that U.S. attorney because they are not working hard enough on,'' say, ``immigration cases,'' we will have no way to get at the first memo, and the truth will not come out.

So, Mr. President, give us all the memos, not just some. Give us all the memos related to this issue, not just the ones that won't help us with the case.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for another 3 minutes, charged against our side.

If we really want to get to the bottom of this issue, there is a much better way to do it--one without politics, one without partisanship, but one that gets at the truth--in public, under oath, with a transcript, and with all the memos being made public.

I think the President has an obligation to tell the American people why he is against a transcript, why he is against an oath, why he is against testimony in public. If our mutual goal is to get at the truth, there is no good justification to not allow those things.

There is precedent. It is not unusual for Presidential advisers to testify

under oath in public before congressional committees or subcommittees. Take President Bush's immediate predecessor, President Clinton. Advisers who held the very same positions that are now held by Karl Rove and Harriet Miers in their time, and their deputies, testified. Harold Ickes testified. Bruce Lindsey testified. John Podesta testified. Beth Nolan testified. Those are people who had the exact same positions as Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and their aides. They testified under oath, in public, with a transcript. If it was good enough for President Clinton and previous Presidents and their aides, why isn't it good enough for this President? Why do we have to have a narrow, constricted standard that seems almost designed not to bring out the truth?

So the Judiciary Committee, under the leadership of Senator Leahy, will follow this investigation where it leads. We have an obligation far above party, far above partisanship to our country and its system of justice to get to the bottom of this situation. We will not be deterred. We will continue to focus. And the truth will come out. We owe it to the U.S. attorneys who were dismissed for reasons that still have not adequately been explained, with their careers and reputations damaged. We owe it to all the other U.S. attorneys who are now under a cloud because of what has been done. We owe it to our system of justice.

Mr. President, please let us have a full, complete investigation, not a limited one almost designed so the truth does not come out.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first, I thank my colleagues from Rhode Island and Michigan for yielding me some time. I appreciate it. Their expertise in this area has been invaluable not only to the Senate but to all Americans. I could not think of two people who have shown light more on this issue than the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Rhode Island.

Where are we now, Mr. President? Somehow--and there will be many debates as to how--what we are doing in Iraq has largely evolved into fighting a civil war, into patrolling a civil war, into policing a civil war, and, yes, into fighting it at times. The age-old enmity between the Sunnis and Shiites, of course, has exploded. Once Saddam Hussein was gone, it was perhaps inevitable that it would occur, particularly without any real authority in large parts of the country.

Most of what our soldiers are doing, and most of those who come back from making the ultimate sacrifice, dying or making a large sacrifice by being wounded, are doing is not fighting terrorism but, rather, policing, patrolling, and even fighting in a civil war. That is not what the American people bargained for. That is not what President Bush stated when we began going into Iraq. In fact, he has never stated that.

Now they say we need to bring order to allow their government to work, but that is a fallacious argument for two reasons. First, we may bring temporary order to Iraq but, make no mistake about it--you don't have to be a Ph.D. in middle eastern studies to realize that the minute our troops leave, whether it is 3 months or 3 years, the fighting between the Sunnis and the Shiites will continue. We will have lost lives, and men and women will have lost limbs, but not much will have changed--even in the medium term.

Second, the absurdity of what we are doing is shown by this: We are sending more troops to create a temporary peace to bolster a government that we don't trust, like, or believe in. Prime Minister Maliki is almost universally regarded poorly, not just at this end of Pennsylvania Avenue but at the other end as well. Their government seems incompetent. The government seems unable to accomplish the most basic things. The government, of course, created a terrible drama, almost, when they could not complete the execution of Saddam Hussein in a way that would have conformed to how it should have been done. So their government is incompetent. It is also controlled, in large part, by someone we do not like, Sadr. The Sadr party is the Prime Minister's base. He cannot do anything, even should he want to, in terms of actually bringing peace and creating a government that is friendly to America.

So here we are with this escalation, a surge to bolster a government we don't like or trust. Here we are, instead of fighting terrorism, policing a civil war. The American people know that. We have seen all of the data and all of the polls. The overwhelming majority does not support the President in Iraq. So we need a change in strategy. Substance dictates it, people see it, and our job in the Senate is to do that. That is what we are attempting to do in this debate.

The proposal that most of us on this side of the aisle are behind is a very simple one. We require the President to change strategy. Instead of policing a civil war, fighting a civil war, our troops should have the far more limited mission of protecting us in America from terrorism. That means that if al-Qaida sets up a base anywhere in Iraq, we should take it out--do what it takes to take it out. But it doesn't mean that our soldiers should be patrolling the streets of Baghdad simply because the Sunnis and Shiites are fighting with each other. That will require a change in mission and will require fewer troops, and those troops need not be in harm's way. It makes eminent sense.

We set a deadline of a little more than a year from now, during which time the mission will have changed. The number of troops will be greatly reduced. We don't set a number. That is up to the President. It is our job in the Congress to debate missions and the broad context of foreign policy and then, should we pass a law, have the President carry out the details.

Now, some on the other side have said that any debate means you are not supporting the troops. Well, I have talked to the troops--to generals and enlisted men and women. They want debate, Mr. President. The more demagogic the other side is, saying if there is a debate, you are not supporting the troops--frankly, that is not the American way. Of course, we debate issues. In fact, their view is that basically the only way to support the troops is to rubberstamp the President's policy. We don't agree with that. We are supporting the troops. We are supporting the troops when they are in the field by trying to get them the body armor and humvees and blood-clotting bandages they have not had. We are supporting them when they come home by trying to fully fund the Veterans' Administration. Don't talk to us about supporting the troops. We are walking the walk and putting our money where our mouth is.

So, sadly, our colleagues on the other side, instead of joining us in this debate, often seek to thwart it, as they did last time. I hope they will not do that again because America is demanding debate. We hope they will come together with us, as we did last year in the Levin- Reid resolution, in a bipartisan change of mission. That is what the people are asking for.

I know my colleagues on the other side are in an uncomfortable position. They are torn between the policy of our President, their party leader, and what their constituencies want. By the way, the constituencies across America want this. I have seen the polling data. It is not just in places such as Rhode Island, New York, and Pennsylvania where the people are asking for a real change in strategy; it is also in places such as Kentucky, North Carolina, and Mississippi. It is throughout America. They are not doing it because they don't support the troops or for some nefarious reason. They are doing it for a reason that is as plain as the noses on our faces: what we are doing now is not working--whether it be with 140,000 or 150,000, 160,000, or 200,000 troops.

So we are here in the hallowed tradition of our Constitution to debate what we are doing in foreign policy and war policy and whether it is right. We will stand together on this side of the aisle and state that, as patriots who support our troops, we desperately need a change in strategy and in mission. We will bring up this issue on the floor of the Senate again and again and again, until our colleagues on the other side join us, until our colleagues on the other side understand that the wishes of their constituencies are for a change in strategy, until our colleagues on the other side have the courage to tell the President that on this issue he simply is wrong. That is part of the hallowed tradition of this country. We are proud to do what we are doing.

Mr. President, I hope and pray that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will allow this debate to go forward, that they will put forward their ideas, and we will put forward ours. Debate it we will and debate it we must. I hope and pray that debate starts to yield the change in strategy that our troops in Iraq, our people in America, the Iraqi people, and the people of the world so desperately need.

With that, I thank my colleague from Rhode Island for the time.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I will speak briefly because I know the floor leader for the minority side has people coming to speak to respond to the amendment. I am not speaking on the amendment.

Mr. President, I rise because I heard Attorney General Gonzales speak about the growing, disheartening, and alarming scandal with the U.S. attorneys. I wish to say, first, that this is a serious issue. In every district in America, the U.S. attorney represents the enforcer of the Federal law without fear or favor. U.S. attorneys over decades have built up a reputation of being not part of politics but, rather, enforcing the law, as they say, without fear or favor.

Over every Justice Department office in every corner of the land is the eagle perched on a branch, with her claw holding a bunch of arrows. When you see that symbol, it denotes strength, but it denotes fairness and impartiality. That fairness, that impartiality has received a serious blow--maybe not a mortal blow because of the resilience of our country, but a serious blow--over what has happened in the Justice Department over the last several months.

What we have had in the past is misstatement after misstatement about what has happened. The story has kept changing, we can't get the truth, and that is why we had no choice but to undertake our own investigation.

Let me say that time and time again we have heard falsehoods. We were told that all seven of the eight U.S. attorneys were fired for performance reasons. It now turns out this was false, as their glowing performance evaluations attest.

We were told by the Attorney General he would ``never, ever make a change for political reasons.'' It now turns out all this was false, as the evidence makes clear this approach was based purely on politics to punish prosecutors who were perceived to be too light on Democrats or too tough on Republicans.

We were told by the Attorney General this was ``an overblown personnel matter.'' It now turns out, however, that far from being a low-level personnel matter, this was a longstanding plan to exact political vendettas or make political payoffs.

We were told the White House was not involved in the plan to fire these U.S. attorneys. It now turns out this was a complete falsehood. Harriet Miers was one of the masterminds of this plan, as demonstrated by numerous e-mails made public today. She communicated extensively with Kyle Sampson about firing of U.S. attorneys. In fact, she originally wanted to fire and replace the top prosecutors in all 93 districts in the country.

We were told that Karl Rove had no involvement in getting his protege appointed U.S. attorney in Arkansas. In fact, there is a letter from the Department of Justice:

The Department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role

in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin.

Mr. Griffin was the attorney whom they appointed. It now turns out this was a falsehood, as demonstrated by Mr. Sampson's e-mail:

Getting him--

Griffin--

was important to Harriet, Karl, et cetera.

We were told the change to the PATRIOT Act was an innocent attempt to fix a legal loophole, to help the war on terrorism, not a cynical strategy to bypass the Senate's role in serving as a check and balance. It now turns out this, too, was a falsehood--another one--as demonstrated by an e-mail from Mr. Sampson:

I strongly recommend that as a matter of administration, we

utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG to

make USA appointments.

Mr. Sampson specifically argued that by using these provisions, the administration ``can give far less deference to home State Senators and thereby get (1) our preferred person appointed and (2) do it faster and more efficiently at less political cost to the White House.''

So it has been misstatement after misstatement. To put it delicately, prevarication after prevarication, changes in stories, coverups in stories. And the only reason, frankly, we are getting to the truth is we have the majority, and we have the ability to subpoena and have hearings and investigate.

A few minutes ago, Attorney General Gonzales spoke. I have to say I have no animus toward Attorney General Gonzales. In fact, I like the man. He seems to me to be a genuinely nice man. He doesn't seem to me to be one of these hard popular warriors who populate the administration in such large numbers and, frankly, we have seen in Justice Department appointees throughout the Justice Department in far too great a number. But simply being a nice person, being a ``nice guy'' is not enough, particularly when you are not performing your job.

The Attorney General got up and said:

I am ultimately responsible, but simply claiming

responsibility is not enough.

He said:

I was not involved in any memos or discussions of what was

going on.

That is his quote.

He said:

Many decisions are delegated.

Mr. President, did the Attorney General not know that eight U.S. attorneys were to be fired? If he didn't know, he shouldn't be Attorney General, plain and simple. That is not a minor personnel decision. That is a major act that has now shaken the integrity of the U.S. Attorney's Offices--not only those in question but all of them--to the core.

To simply say decisions were delegated, that is a sorry excuse. And then, of course, if the Attorney General knew, that one doesn't work either.

The Attorney General has said:

I will do the best I can to maintain the confidence of the

American people.

Mr. Attorney General, you have already lost that confidence. It has not simply been on this issue, although this is the straw that has broken the camel's back, and when you sat in a room with Senator Leahy and Senator Feinstein and Senator Specter and myself last Thursday and seemed to give this crisis, most considered crisis, the back of your hand and say it is not terribly important and don't worry, we will fix it without caring about it, my total confidence was shaken, and I believe the others in the room felt the same.

This was, as I said, the straw that broke the camel's back. It was hardly the only decision. On issue after issue, the Attorney General has not stood up for the rule of law, which is his foremost duty. On issue after issue, whether it be wiretaps, whether it be national security letters, whether it be the unitary theory of the Executive, allowing the Executive to do everything with no checks and balances, this Secretary has been a rubberstamp for policies that the courts have found repeatedly unconstitutional.

The Attorney General, unfortunately, in my judgment, misconceives his role. The Attorney General misconceives his role because he still sees himself as counsel to the President, his previous job, where he rubberstamped everything the President did. But when you are the President's counsel, your job is to serve the President, period. When you become Attorney General, you have a higher

duty. That duty is the rule of law--to preserve it, to protect it, to defend it. For whatever reason, the Attorney General doesn't see that as his role. His time in office should be over.

The U.S. attorneys scandal and all the other instances where the Attorney General did not protect the rule of law are just too great a weight for the office to bear. To simply say ``I am responsible'' and not tell people what it is all about makes no sense. We just saw Scooter Libby be convicted. Many said he was a fall guy. We are not going to have another Scooter Libby, another fall guy. Kyle Sampson did many wrong things, and it is very possible he broke the criminal law, but, as Harry Truman said, the buck stops at the top. The buck stops with the Attorney General. It defies belief that his chief of staff was making all these major decisions without his knowledge, particularly when it is clear that at least on a few instances he admits he had phone calls from the President and from others about this issue.

I want to say one other thing, because this issue is not going to go away. This issue is going to stay with us until we find out everything that has happened, for the sake of punishing those who did wrong but also, more importantly, to clear the air and restore the good name of the U.S. attorneys who were fired incorrectly and of the U.S. attorneys--a more numerous group--who were not involved in this issue but whose reputations have been called into question. Tomorrow, if someone is indicted by a U.S. attorney who had no involvement in this scandal and their defense attorney says politics was involved, the public may believe it, given what we have seen happen thus far. So it is our obligation, it is our moral imperative to get to the bottom of this, to clear the air, and to restore the reputation of U.S. Attorney's Offices now and into the future, and that is just what we will do.

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

Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the managers of the bill. We have made good progress on this bill, something that has taken far too long to accomplish since the Commission's report.

Next, I would like to offer two amendments to this bill, which I filed in an attempt to strengthen certain provisions. The committee versions of the bill make significant strides in several areas of security, including improving truck security, and I offer a modified version of No. 367 and the original, No. 366. Two amendments.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I offer the first amendment, No. 367, to make the provision in the underlying committee bill even stronger with a new program to address trucks carrying high-hazard materials. Every day there are trucks that carry high-HAZMAT materials. If a truck is hijacked by a terrorist, it could spell disaster. We need to take action to prevent this from happening, and that is why my amendment will create a system not only to track these high-hazard trucks but to take action to stop a truck in its tracks by shutting down its engine if it strays off course.

This has worked in other countries. My amendment will require the Department of Transportation and TSA to work together to create a system to track these trucks, as well as respond accordingly if there is a problem. Every one of these trucks must submit a predetermined route to the TSA. If a truck strays from its plan, and we will know this by tracking its movements,

which GSA allows, TSA is automatically alerted and the system quickly responds.

As I said, we know a system such as this can work. It has been implemented in other countries. Hazardous material in trucks is one of the issues we have not dealt with sufficiently since 9/11. I look forward to the committee's receptiveness to this amendment and to working with the chair and ranking member to see if we can adopt this amendment. This is an important step.

The second amendment I offer, No. 366, along with my colleague, Senator Kyl, will restore export restrictions on highly enriched uranium to reduce risks of terrorists obtaining this material to make nuclear weapons. Highly enriched uranium, HEU, can be used to make actual nuclear weapons, such as that dropped on Hiroshima, not just dirty bombs.

Until 2005, U.S. law restricted exports of bomb-grade uranium. However, this antiterrorism policy was undercut by an ill-considered amendment to the Energy Policy Act that eliminated these restrictions. By increasing the amount of HEU in circulation around the world, the Energy bill created an unacceptable risk by heightening the possibility that weapons-grade uranium could be lost or stolen and fall into the hands of terrorists with known nuclear ambitions. What made this language so astonishing is that it created much more risk without absolutely any reward by claiming to fix a problem that didn't exist.

The reality of this situation is that terrorists don't care if the weapons-grade uranium they try to get their hands on was meant for medical or military use. We know all they care about is how they can use it to attack our Nation and our way of life. If we have learned anything since September 11, it is we must take every step to ensure terrorists can never lay their hands on the materials they would need to launch an attack of mass destruction against the United States.

I urge my colleagues to support both these amendments. I hope we can work with the committee to get them accepted.

Mr. President, with that, in deference to my colleagues, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I ask to set aside the pending amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to offer two amendments to the 9/ 11 Commission recommendations bill. After I have an opportunity to address these amendments, I ask they be set aside so we may proceed with further proceedings on the bill.

I hope we can reach agreement, I say to my friend from Connecticut. I hope we can reach agreement on these amendments, as they are critical to making sure our homeland security dollars are spent wisely in the way that will do the most to protect our Nation.

Nearly 6 years since the tragedy of September 11, Congress finally has the opportunity to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 Commission has done a tremendous job providing our Nation with the tools to make our Nation safer and now is the time for Congress to act and to get it right.

I thank Senators Lieberman and Collins for their hard work and dedication to this bill and thank my colleague from New York, Senator Clinton, for joining me on these two important amendments.

We are here today to talk about one of the most important pieces of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, funding the Homeland Security Grant Program, administered under the Department of Homeland Security. Unfortunately, DHS has not always approached the allocation of vital homeland security dollars the way the 9/11 Commission intended. The 9/ 11 Commission intended that homeland security funds, including the high-threat Urban Area Security Initiative, UASI, and the State Homeland Security Grant Program, SHSGP, be allocated based on risk. In fiscal year 2006, the most high-risk and high-threat cities in the Nation, New York City and Washington DC, two cities which suffered tremendously from the horror of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, received a 40-percent cut in high-threat UASI funding from DHS. Using a peer review process, DHS made funding decisions based on including popcorn factories and petting zoos, while cities such as New York were forced to cut key security initiatives such as staff patrols on the Brooklyn Bridge and NYPD inspection of backpacks within the New York City subway system.

DHS relied on an untested system of peer review in 2006 to allocate high-threat security funding, and it failed miserably. A 40-percent cut in high-threat funds for our highest risk cities is unacceptable and exactly the opposite of what the 9/11 Commission recommended. Despite the firestorm of criticism that the Homeland Security Department faced for its UASI allocation of funding in 2006, DHS decided once again to use the peer review process when allocating high-threat funding in 2007. That makes one doubt the thinking that is going on in DHS, not only on this issue.

So I ask amendment No. 336 be called up.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

This amendment will bar DHS from using the peer review process when making allocations for high-threat UASI funding. Our most targeted cities should not be subject to the arbitrary whims of an untested bureaucratic process that clearly does not have the best interests of our high-risk cities as its No. 1 priority.

DHS was wrong about the effectiveness of the peer review process, and it has also been off the mark on the amount of homeland security funds that can be used to cover personnel and overtime.

This bill makes clear that different cities under very different levels of risk have very different security needs. We should not be punishing cities such as New York that must rely on personnel to make our cities safer.

One example is our bridges because they have been targeted. The Brooklyn Bridge near my home, which I take back and forth all the time, has two police officers at each end 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That is 20 police officers. If one looks at policeman hours, four times five, five shifts is what it takes to cover 24/7. That kind of funding is essential to the safety of New York, yet it is limited by the process. Our amendment would change that.

Amendment No. 337 to Amendment No. 275

I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be set aside so that I may call up amendment No. 337.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

This amendment also addresses a critical shortfall in previous allocations for homeland security funding: the payment of overtime for first responders such as police officers. High-threat cities such as New York can't rely on equipment and technology alone to get the job done. New York City, with its vast population and national landmarks, needs trained, expert personnel guarding its tunnels, bridges, and landmarks to keep New Yorkers and the huge amount of visitors it has every year safe.

Having trained security personnel available at all times to protect our citizens is not an issue unique to New York City. In this difficult budget climate, cities across the country are faced with hard choices when it comes to keeping our citizens safe from terrorists. The Department of Homeland Security should allow our cities and States the ability to fund the activities necessary to protect our citizens.

The potential for terror is not limited to 8-to-5 shifts. We need to give our cities and States the resources they need to do their job. If they should choose to use overtime in funding in their UASI allocation, they should be allowed to do it.

Amendment No. 335

I also would like to take a moment to talk about Senator Feinstein's amendment that I am cosponsoring along with several of my colleagues. The Feinstein amendment will lower the minimum grant for the State Homeland Security Grant Program to .25, lower than the .45 proposed in the Senate version of the bill. The amendment will also lower the minimum for interoperable communications to .25, down from .75 in the bill. While I appreciate the committee raising the amount of funding for SHSGP funds to $913 million, well above the amount included in the President's 2008 budget, the formula minimums included in the Senate bill provided less funding for New York.

New York is not alone. Other States, such as California and Texas, will also face cuts in funding unless we lower the minimum in the Senate bill. We can't allow our larger cities and most vulnerable targets to be left relatively unprepared for a major attack relative to other cities because they are not given the Federal resources they deserve.

Some in the Senate will make the argument that States across the country have needs that must be addressed, and we need to be prepared in all communities. While I understand their concern, the Senate has recognized that need by authorizing the emergency management performance grants in the same amount as the SHSGP grants and by providing EMPG grants with a .75 minimum to address all-hazard needs across the country.

In addition to EMPG grants, the Senate has also provided a minimum amount of funding for interoperability communications grants, something the city of New York has spent millions on since 9/11 so the rest of the country might implement this valuable technology.

Now is the time for the Senate to do the right thing. While I applaud the overall work of Senators Lieberman and Collins on this important bill, one area we have strayed is in the area of grant funding. I know they come from smaller States. Obviously, they are defending their States. But if we are allocating money on the basis of need, on the basis of where the greatest threat of terrorism is, the funding formula here does not really do the job.

The 9/11 Commission, for instance, neither from a smaller State or bigger State perspective and looking at things objectively, recommends that funding be allocated on risk alone. The minimums allocated in this bill do not do that. One need look only as far as the tragedy of 9/11 to answer the question of why funding for the most targeted cities is the most important.

I urge my colleagues to support the Feinstein amendment. We have the opportunity to fix the past mistakes at DHS and ensure that the appropriate amount of funding is distributed in a way that will benefit all and ensure that highest risk areas are adequately protected. Now is that time.

I look forward to working with the committee on these important amendments to the way the bill addresses the grant program. I know the committee shares my commitment to ensuring our first responders and all critical homeland security needs have the funding needed to protect our citizens. The committee has done important work to authorize for the first time funding for the grant programs. I look forward to working with Senators Lieberman and Collins on this issue.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, that I be allowed to offer and speak on my amendment, and that Senator Menendez be permitted to speak after I do. I send the amendment to the desk.

I have no objection.

I do.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, at the request of my colleague from Maine, who wishes to wait until Senator Lieberman can come to the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I rise today to speak on an amendment offered by myself and my colleague from New Jersey to deal with 100 percent scanning of containers that enter our ports.

First, I wish to salute my colleague from New Jersey. He has been a stalwart leader on this issue while in the House and now in the Senate. It has been a pleasure to work with him side by side on something people on both sides of the Hudson River care so dearly about.

I rise today to call upon my colleagues to take action against one of the greatest risks that confront the United States. It is one of the very greatest, if not the greatest risk, and that is a nuclear weapon reaching our shores in a shipping container.

More than 11 million cargo containers come into our country's ports each year, but only 5 percent of these containers are thoroughly inspected by Customs agents. That means right now if, God forbid, a nuclear weapon were put in one of these containers, it could have a 1- in-20 chance of being detected. No American, certainly no New Yorker, likes those odds.

It means a terrorist could almost use any cargo container as a ``Trojan horse'' to hide a nuclear weapon or radiological material and bring it to the United States. We know terrorists have tried to purchase nuclear weapons and radiological materials on the black market. We also know the United States is a top target.

Let me be clear: a nuclear weapon does not have to enter the United States or leave our ports to cause death and destruction. Our major ports are also our major cities because so many of our cities, similar to New York, were founded and thrive on maritime trading. A terrorist group could simply detonate a nuclear weapon at the port terminal for the ship docks or even as the ship approaches the harbor. The devastation of a terrorist nuclear attack is literally unimaginable. A nuclear explosion in one of our major ports or one of our major inland cities--if such a weapon were smuggled into one of our ports and driven by truck to it, an Omaha or a Chicago or a Saint Louis--would cause enormous loss of life, both immediately and over time. It would inflict huge economic and physical damage, would render parts of the attacked cities unusable and unapproachable for decades, and would dramatically change life in this country forever.

We are also at risk of an attack with a ``dirty bomb'' that combines conventional explosives with radiological material. The consequences, while not as severe as a nuclear weapon, would also be horrific.

A nuclear or radiological attack by terrorists in our ports is a scenario that keeps me up at night. I worry about my children, my family, my friends, and then 19 million New Yorkers, and 30 million Americans. But the people running things at the Department of Homeland Security do not seem to be losing a wink of sleep over this. DHS gives us the usual delay and nay-saying that we have seen so often.

I have been talking about this issue for 5 years in this Congress. I have offered amendment after amendment, and every time people come back and say: Forbear. We will get it done. Well, it is now 2007. It is 5\1/ 2\ years after 9/11, and we are not close to doing what we should be doing--not even close.

I am tired of all the excuses and delay and, frankly, lack of focus-- proportionate focus. I am tired of the lack of proportionate focus the Department of Homeland Security gives to this issue. If we all agree this is one of the greatest tragedies that could befall us, then how in God's Name do we pay so little attention, put in so few resources to getting this done?

Congress--this new Congress--owes it to the country and to our children and to our families to do better. This amendment will do much better.

The Schumer-Menendez amendment contains the same firm deadlines the House passed in January for DHS to require all containers coming into the United States from foreign ports to be scanned for nuclear and radiological weapons and then sealed with a tamperproof lock.

Within 3 years, 100 percent of containers coming from the largest foreign ports would be scanned and sealed before arriving in the United States.

Within 5 years, 100 percent of all containers from all ports worldwide would be scanned and sealed.

Imagine, on that date, only 5 years from now, Americans could breathe a huge sigh of relief knowing we are safe from the nightmare I described earlier.

Now, I know what the critics say. The critics say 100 percent scanning cannot be done. But the truth is, technology for scanning does exist, and it can be expected to improve steadily, as technology usually does. The experts are divided. There are some who say it cannot be done, some who say it can be done. I know the shipping industry would rather we not do this, that we slow-walk it. I understand their interest. But our interest is much greater.

We already have advanced scanning equipment that can check for radiation as a moving cargo container passes through a port. That is without dispute. As a part of the same process, we have equipment that can create a detailed image showing the density of the contents of the container, in order to see radioactive material that might be shielded.

In fact, this scanning equipment is already being set up at foreign ports and brought online through DHS's Secure Freight Initiative, which is a pilot project required under last year's SAFE Port Act.

Now, the Secure Freight Initiative is a good start, but it is only a small start. It will only scan between 5 and 10 percent of our incoming cargo for nuclear weapons. We cannot, we must not, and do not have to accept 5 percent security.

The only real barrier to 100 percent scanning is lack of will--lack of will in the administration, which we have seen for 5\1/2\ years; lack of will in DHS, which we have seen from its inception;

and, frankly, lack of will in this Congress. If we show we are serious about 100 percent scanning, then we will see an end to the administration's and DHS's foot-dragging and a beginning of real security.

Adapting to 100 percent scanning may have some small effect on commerce. It is true, it will affect commerce. But that is far outweighed by the complete shutdown of trade that a successful attack would cause. A nuclear attack in the shipping chain would grind commerce to a halt.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my colleague from New York, Senator Clinton, be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Our amendment is sensible, it is feasible, and it is absolutely necessary.

The Congressional Budget Office says the House bill--which is very similar to this amendment--will cost the Government $160 million in 2008 through 2012. That may sound like a lot of money, but it is such a small price to pay for an enormous improvement in security. When we compare it to the other large sums we spend on other things, it is not even close.

If we asked Americans to rank the cost of this program with the benefit, it would be at the very top of the list. America sees it. Certainly, New York sees it. New Jersey sees it. Why doesn't this body? I hope we will.

The amendment does not obligate the Government to buy scanning equipment or seals. Scanning equipment will simply become a cost of doing international business, similar to so many other necessary costs that are imposed for very good reasons.

The DHS rules for 100 percent scanning will not be developed in a vacuum but will use the results of the Secure Freight Initiative and other demonstrations of scanning technology.

Under my amendment, DHS will only issue a final 100 percent scanning regulation after the Secure Freight Initiative pilot project is complete and DHS reports to Congress. DHS will use the lessons learned from the pilot project to write regulations that are workable.

Our amendment also has some flexibility because it is obvious you cannot do scanning without equipment. The Secretary of Homeland Security can extend the deadline for 100 percent scanning by a year if the scanning equipment is not available for purchase and installation in a port.

This amendment also will not lock us into using today's technology when tomorrow arrives. Under this amendment, DHS will have to develop standards for the best available scanning technology and also for container seals and to update these standards regularly as technology improves.

This amendment accommodates our international agreements with our trading partners. It authorizes DHS to develop international standards for container security, and it directs DHS to ensure that 100 percent scanning is implemented in a way that is consistent with our international trade obligations.

I cannot overstate how much it disturbs me that Congress has, so far, lacked the resolve to impose firm deadlines for 100 percent scanning. Now the House has acted decisively and so should the Senate.

The amendment is desperately needed to keep the scanning effort moving forward and to create a real incentive for DHS to require container scanning all over the world.

I truly believe, unless we have a firm deadline, DHS will continue to drag its feet and our people in America, in our ports and on land, will be susceptible to this kind of horror for far too many years than they should have to be. Again, there will be arguments that it is not feasible. A deadline will make it feasible. A deadline will concentrate the minds of those in DHS and in the shipping industry to get it done, and if after 3 or 4 years they have shown effort and they say they need an extension, they can come back to the Congress to do it. But I would argue that is the way to go, not to set no deadline and let them proceed at the all-too-slow pace we have seen thus far.

This amendment is desperately needed to keep the scanning effort moving forward and to create a real incentive for DHS to require container scanning all over the world; otherwise, we will probably see the same misplaced priorities from DHS we usually do.

At any given moment, our seaports are full of container ships and more are steaming to and from our shores. Each one of these ships, unfortunately, is an opportunity for terrorists to strike at our industry, our infrastructure, and our lives. We know our enemies will wait patiently and plan carefully in order to create maximum panic, damage, death. A nuclear weapon in a shipping container would be a dream come true for them, those few crazy fanatics who unfortunately live in the same world as we do, but it would be an endless nightmare for us.

We have lived with the threat of a nuclear weapon in a shipping container for so long that some people seem prepared to accept this insecurity as a fact of life. But talk to intelligence experts or read the New York Times Magazine from last Sunday. Al-Qaida and others are focusing, and they would prefer this method of terrorism, worst of all. I am not prepared, my colleague from New Jersey, my colleague from New York, and hopefully a majority of this body is not prepared to let this insecurity continue. When it comes to shipping container security, the danger is obvious, the stakes are high, and the solution is available. We simply cannot afford any more delay.

One of the greatest risks facing our security is that a terrorist could easily smuggle a nuclear weapon from a foreign country into our ports. It would inflict countless deaths, tremendous destruction, and bring trade to a standstill. The bottom line is program screening for nuclear materials is delayed, funding for research and development squandered, and international security mismanaged.

If this administration isn't going to put some muscle behind security under the current laws, then Congress ought to do it, and we ought to do it now. We have waited long enough.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with me and Senator Menendez in making our ports, our Nation, and the international supply chain more secure by enacting firm deadlines for 100 percent scanning.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I know the time is divided equally. How much time does each side have?

Madam President, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague, and I know he cares a great deal about protecting our country. But with all due respect, I cannot stand here and say that the SAFE Port Act does enough. The SAFE Port Act says that 100 percent scanning must be imposed ``as soon as possible.'' It might as well say whenever DHS feels like it.

For somebody like myself and my colleague from New Jersey and my colleague from New York, we have been waiting for DHS to do this ``as soon as possible'' for 4 years. We have been alerting DHS to this terrible potential tragedy we face--a nuclear weapon being smuggled into our harbors, a nuclear weapon exploding on a ship right off our harbors--for years. DHS just slow-walks it. Why?

Part of the reason is that they are never adequately funded, which is no fault of my colleague from Connecticut. But the administration does not like to spend money on anything domestic. They never put the adequate money into it. It is amazing to me that they will spend everything it takes to fight a war on terror overseas. Some of that is well spent and some, I argue, is not. Nonetheless, they spend it. They won't spend hardly a nickel, figuratively speaking, to protect us on defense at home. So the progress has been slow.

This is not the first time I have offered amendments to prod DHS to do more on nuclear detection devices, on port security. I don't know why anyone in this Chamber, faced with the potential tragedy that we have, would decide

to leave it up to DHS. But that is just what this base bill does. I don't know what people are afraid of. Yes, we have people with shipping interests who say don't do this, it will cost a little bit more. Terrorism costs all of us more. To allow a narrow band of shippers to prevail on an issue that affects our security is beyond me.

Is the technology available? I will be honest with you that there is a dispute. Either way, the amendment the Senator from New Jersey and I have introduced makes sense. If it is available, they will implement it. If it is not available, they will perfect it and get it working because they have a deadline. Nothing will concentrate the mind of DHS like a deadline. But vague, amorphous language that says ``as soon as possible''--their view of ``as soon as possible'' is not enough to safeguard America.

Very few things that we do in the Senate frustrate me more than this. Why don't we force DHS and force the administration to make us safe against arguably the greatest disaster that could befall us--one that we know al-Qaida and other terrorists would like to pursue? Why do we allow laxity, just obliviousness, and a narrow special interest to prevail over what seems to be so much the common good?

I am aghast. This amendment should not even be debated by now. Maybe in 2003, maybe in 2004. But it is now 2007, and we are still not doing close to what we should be doing. Just last night, I spoke to an expert who said the technology is there. If there is a will, there is a way. Again, I say if you believe the technology isn't there, the answer isn't to let DHS proceed at the same lackadaisical pace, when one of the greatest dangers that could befall us could happen.

My colleagues, nobody wants to wake up in a ``what if'' scenario. After 9/11 occurred, we were all ``what-ifing''--what if we had done this or what if we had done that. It was hard before that because nobody envisioned that somebody would fly a whole bunch of airplanes into our buildings. We know the terrorists want to explode a nuclear device in America or off our shores. That is not a secret. I argue that that is as great a danger to us as is what is happening in Iraq. Will my colleagues say we should not spend all the money when it comes to fighting a war on terror overseas? Of course not.

The other side of the aisle says spend every nickel we need. Here, when it comes to homeland security, they are either defending an administration that has botched this issue like they botched so many others or because maybe some shipping interests complain or because they truly believe the technology is not available, and we continue to slow-walk this issue.

I will have more to say in a few minutes. I will yield the floor so my colleague from Maine and my colleague from New Jersey can have a chance to speak.

I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my time be reserved.

Will my colleague yield for a question on my time?

Again, I have great respect for my colleague and all he has done in homeland security. But I don't get the argument. My colleague just said they will report to us, and if we are not satisfied we can later impose a deadline. Given the urgency, why not do it the other way? Put in a deadline, and if 2 years from now they say they cannot do it, they will come back to us and we can remove the deadline. It seems to me that would get them to act more quickly than the approach my colleague has suggested.

I yield for an answer.

I yield 5 minutes of our remaining time to my colleague and fellow sponsor, Senator Menendez.

Madam President, what is the status of the time?

Madam President, first, I thank my colleague from Maine for helping make our case. She says the technology for detecting radiation is available. Who in God's name thinks if we didn't set a deadline or if the President didn't order DHS to make it the highest priority that we wouldn't find a way to scan all containers within 5 years? Of course we would. This is just defense of DHS. I say to my colleagues, DHS has a terrible track record in this area, like so many others. They have been asked to do this for years already, and they are nowhere.

Now, my good friend from Connecticut says: Well, on October 13, we passed legislation. Well, that is 3 years after 9/11. What is wrong, my colleagues? Why isn't everything right with a deadline that says you better move as quickly as you can? Yes, if they should need, if they come to us 3 years from now and we are convinced that they have done everything they can, that the money has been spent, that the experts have been contacted and used appropriately, then we can delay it. Instead, we have this approach which seems to me to be backward--let us delay another 2 or 3 years, and if they do not do a good job, we can then put in a deadline.

No one is arguing we shouldn't have deadlines. The argument boils down to, do you trust DHS to do the job or would you rather have an immutable deadline on something which is the most damaging thing? I can't think of anything worse or close to it than a nuclear weapon exploding in America or off our shores. The technology is there, my colleagues. Yes, DHS doesn't want to spend the money necessary. Yes, DHS has not had very good people in this Department.

How are my colleagues going to go home and tell their constituents that when there was a chance to really move an agency and set a deadline, as the House did--this is not some crazy idea; the House voted by a significant majority for it--that they didn't do it, they didn't do it because they had faith in DHS? I don't know who does. How do my colleagues say they didn't do it because their port or a shipping company said they didn't want to do it or they didn't do it because they didn't think it was that big a problem? I don't think any of those reasons stand up. I don't think any of them stand up.

I have to say I have listened carefully to my colleagues, and I have great respect for them and the jobs they do, but their arguments just don't wash: Let's give them another chance. My colleagues, when it comes to this problem, we can't afford to give them another chance.

I urge a vote for the amendment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Kennedy, Lautenberg, and Biden be added as cosponsors.

Mr. President, I rise to follow up on the comments of my friend from California, who has legislation I am proud to cosponsor on the general issue of the fired U.S. attorneys.

Mr. President, it is said that ``where there is smoke there is fire.'' As we look at the case of the U.S. attorneys, that is more and more likely to be true.

Today, according to the McClatchy Newspapers, one of the fired U.S. attorneys from New Mexico said that ``two Members of Congress separately called in mid-October to inquire about the timing of an ongoing probe of a kickback scheme and appeared eager for an indictment to be issued on the eve of the elections in order to benefit the Republicans.''

That is a quote in an article by Marisa Taylor of the McClatchy Newspapers. Frankly, it comes as no surprise to me. That is because David Iglesias, the U.S. attorney, told my staff the same thing the day before. He asked, in fact, that he be brought to Washington--was willing, rather, to be brought to Washington, under the power of subpoena, to tell his story. We have inquired of the fired U.S. attorneys. The overwhelming majority of them want to tell more but feel honor-bound not to do it, except if they were brought under the power of subpoena to Washington.

So I join certainly in the request of my colleague from California and others. I have already spoken to Senator Leahy, and we are examining how that can be accomplished. Senator Leahy is very mindful of the fact that the Judiciary Committee doesn't issue subpoenas willy- nilly. But given the fact that some of the U.S. attorneys expressed a desire to testify, and others said they would be willing to testify, and now with these new revelations, the fear many of us had that these U.S. attorneys were summarily fired not for no reason and not for a good reason but for a bad reason is coming closer to reality.

Mr. President, we must get to the bottom of this issue. The U.S. attorney is the lead enforcer of the law in his or her jurisdiction. Fortunately, for decades, the U.S. attorneys, almost without exception, have been insulated from the political process, even though they are chosen in part by the political process. So when six were fired in one evening, and when it later became clear in hearings I held that at least one, by the admission of the Deputy Attorney General, was fired for no reason, and a call from the White House to suggest a replacement who was someone with very little legal experience but someone who had worked for both Karl Rove and the RNC, I believe it was, you can imagine the concern that not only the Senator from California and I had but the concern throughout the country in law enforcement-- nonpolitical, simply a desire to protect the integrity of the U.S. attorneys. So we must do two things now.

These new revelations are extremely troubling. They would show politics at its worst--the long hand of the Justice Department reaching out to fire U.S. attorneys who would not do what was politically asked. At least that is a very real suspicion. So we must get to the bottom of this. The only way to do that is to call before us the fired U.S. attorneys and hear their side of the story.

I remind my colleagues that we did have a briefing--the Senator from California was there, the Senator from Rhode Island was there--and then were shown the evaluation reports, the EARS reports, and almost to a person the fired U.S. attorneys received very good evaluations from their peers and from everybody else. If you read those evaluations, you would say: Oh, they will keep that person in office for as long as he or she wants to stay. But instead, they were fired.

In private conversations my staff has had with them, they have grave suspicions as to why--some of them more than grave suspicions. Today, Mr. Iglesias said publicly what he told my staff privately, that he has a very troubling view that he may well have been fired because he refused to bend his U.S. attorney's office to politics of the worst sort.

So there are two imperatives here. One, as I said, is to get to the bottom of this and get to the bottom of it quickly. The second is to pass legislation that restores the appointment of U.S. attorneys away or at least removes it somewhat from the political realm because when the Senate must confirm or when an independent judge must temporarily appoint, there is a check, there is a balance that was removed, unbeknownst to almost all of us, in the PATRIOT Act. The minute that passed, people were surprised and wondered: Why did it happen? The explanation from the administration didn't quite ring true. Then, on the evening of December 7, when six U.S. attorneys were called at once and fired and not given any reason, suspicions went further. The investigations my subcommittee has had, with the help of our chairman, the Senator from Vermont, and the Senator from California, who has taken a keen interest in this issue and is lead sponsor of the legislation, have gotten worse every day.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the expression goes: Where there is smoke, there is fire. Every day, not only is there more smoke in this investigation of the firing of the U.S. attorneys, but there seems to be, unfortunately, a real fire. We will not rest until we get to the bottom of this matter, to see what happened, to see if possibly any rules, regulations, or even laws were broken. By bringing it to light, it will importune this body, the other body, and the White House to pass legislation so that it cannot happen again.

Mr. President, in sum, this is serious stuff. When U.S. attorneys are fired for political reasons, fired to stand in the way of justice rather than promote justice, it puts a dagger into the heart of the faith Americans have in their Government and in their system of justice. That faith, fortunately, is long and deep, but if we don't get to the bottom of this, if we don't change the law to make sure it doesn't happen again, we will be weakening permanently our system of justice and the faith the public has in it.

We will move forward in whatever way we can. Hopefully, we will find it is possible to subpoena these attorneys and subpoena them quickly and then take the necessary action in these cases and prevent future cases from occurring, which justice and the faith the people have in the American system demand.

I yield the floor.