Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, and my colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, to introduce legislation today to protect America's children from the vicious criminals who prey on them.

While we've made some progress in the last few years, anyone who picks up a newspaper today can see that far too many of our kids are still too vulnerable.

The most recent annual data shows that about 58,000 children were abducted by nonfamily members, usually people who are strangers to the children. The most frequent victims were teenage girls. Almost one-half of these victims were sexually molested.

Our bill, ``The Prevention and Recovery of Missing Children Act of 2005'', will take 3 common-sense steps to better protect the children of America.

First, it will require that information on a missing child be disseminated throughout the country within 2 hours through the National Crime Information Center database. The reason for this requirement is that time is of the essence. In cases where a child is killed, the evidence shows that the child died within the first three hours of being kidnapped. The more quickly that police throughout the country can be alerted, the more likely it is that we can save a child before a child is harmed.

Second, the bill will make it tougher for convicted sex offenders to escape the law and the watchful eye of the community in which they live. We know that far too many jurisdictions rely essentially on the voluntary actions of the convicted sex offender to register his residence, his car and license plate, and other pertinent information. Moreover, requirements vary from state to state and jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Therefore the legislation we are introducing today will provide tough national standards that will require these criminals to register before they are released from prison. It will require, within 48 hours of moving to a new residence, that these individuals report to local law enforcement and provide information about their residence, a current photograph, DNA sample, as well as report the make, model, and license plate number of his or her vehicle and get a drivers license or ID. Every 90 days, they would have to verify their registry information and annually provide a new photograph. Failure to comply with these requirements would subject the criminal to a felony.

These new requirements are tough, but our children's safety is far too important to be left to patchwork laws and the voluntary action of convicted criminals whose likelihood of repeating the crime is extremely high.

Third, the legislation removes a current requirement that the names of missing children be deleted from the national database when those children turn 18. Just because a child turns 18 doesn't mean that our country should not try to find that child and certainly doesn't mean that the child should be forgotten.

Nothing we do as a Nation is more important than building a better future for our children. And, nothing is more important to building that future than keeping our children safe today.

Therefore, in my view, no legislation is more important to be enacted in this Congress than this legislation to protect our children from every parent's nightmare. I ask unanimous consent to have a brief summary of the bill printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to announce the reintroduction of the Information Technology for Health Care Quality Act. By encouraging health care providers to invest in information technology (IT), this legislation has the potential to bring skyrocketing health care costs under control and improve the overall quality of care in our nation.

We are facing a health care crisis in our country. According to the Census Bureau, 45 million Americans were without health insurance in 2003--an increase of 1.4 million over 2002. In many respects, we have the greatest health system in the world, but far too many Americans are unable to take advantage of this system.

The number of uninsured continues to rise because the cost of health care continues to soar. Year after year, health care costs increase by double-digit percentages. The cost of employer-sponsored coverage increased by 11 percent last year, after a 14-percent increase in 2003. Employers are dropping health care coverage because they can no longer afford to foot the bill.

One of the ways to provide health care coverage to every American is to reign in health care costs. And expanding the use of IT in health care is the best tool we have to control costs. Studies have shown that as much as one-third of health care spending is for redundant or inappropriate care. Estimates suggest that up to 14 percent of laboratory tests and 11 percent of medication usage are unnecessary. Finally, and perhaps most disturbingly, we know that it takes, on average, 17 years for evidence to be incorporated into clinical practice. Along these same lines, a recent study showed that patients receive the best evidence-based treatment only about half the time.

Significant cost-savings will undoubtedly be realized simply by moving away from a paper-based system, where patient charts and test results are easily lost or misplaced, to an electronic system where data is easily stored, transferred from location to location, and retrieved at any time. With health IT, physicians will have their patients' medical information, at their fingertips. A physician will no longer have to take another set of X-Rays because the first set was misplaced, or order a test that the patient had six months ago in another hospital because she is unaware that the test ever took place. The potential for cost-savings from simply eliminating redundancies and unnecessary tests, and reducing administrative and transaction costs, is substantial.

Of course, when we consider the improved quality of care and patient safety that will result from wider adoption of health IT, the impact on cost is even greater. For example, IT can provide decision support to ensure that physicians are aware of the most up-to-date, evidence-based best practices regarding a specific disease or condition, which will reduce expensive hospitalizations. Given all of these benefits, estimates suggest that Electrontc Health Records (EHRs) alone could save more than $100 billion each year. The full benefits of IT could be multiple hundreds of billions annually. Such a significant reduction in health care costs would allow us to provide coverage to millions of uninsured Americans.

The benefits of IT go beyond economics. I am sure that all of my colleagues are familiar with the Institute of Medicine (IOM) estimate that up to 98,000 Americans die each year as a result of medical errors. A RAND Corporation study from last year showed that, on average, patients receive the recommended care for certain widespread chronic conditions only half of the time. That is an astonishing figure. To put it in a slightly different way, for many of the health conditions with which physicians should be most familiar, half of all patients are essentially being treated incorrectly.

Most experts in the field of patient safety and health care quality, incuding the IOM, agree that improving IT is one of the crucial steps towards safer and better health care. By providing physicians with access to patients' complete medical history, as well as electronic cues to help them make the correct treatment decisions, IT has the potential to significantly impact the care that Americans receive. It is impossible to put a value on the potential savings in human lives that would undoubtedly result from a nationwide investment in health care information technology.

It might seem counterintuitive that we can realize tremendous cost savings while, at the same time, improving care for patients. But in fact, improving patient care is essential to reducing costs. IT is the key to unlocking the door--it has the potential to lead to improvements in care and efficiency that will save patients' lives, reduce costs, and reduce the number of uninsured.

Unfortunately, despite the impact that IT can have on cost, efficiency, patient safety, and health care quality, most health care providers have not yet begun to invest in new technologies. The use of IT in most hospitals and doctors' offices lags far behind almost every other sphere of society. The vast majority of written work, such as patient charts and prescriptions, is still done using pen and paper. This leads to mistakes, higher costs, reduced quality of care, and in the most tragic cases, death.

There is no question in my mind that the federal government has a significant role to play in expanding investment in health IT. The legislation that I am introducing today defines that role. First, this bill would establish federal leadership in defining a Nationai Health Information Infrastructure (NHII) and adopting health IT standards. While I am pleased that the administration has already appointed a National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, I believe that the authority given to the Coordinator and the resources at his disposal are not equal to the enormity of his task. That is why my legislation creates an office in the White House, the Office of Health Information Technology, to oversee all of the Federal Government's activities in the area of health IT, and to create and implement a national strategy to expand the adoption of IT in health care.

This office would also be responsible for leading a collaborative effort between the public and private sectors to develop technical standards for health IT. These standards will ensure that health care information can be shared between providers, so that a family moving from Connecticut to California will not have to leave their medical history behind. At the same time, this bill would ensure that the adopted standards protect the privacy of patient records. While the creation of portable electronic health records is an important goal, privacy and confidentiality must not be sacrificed.

This legislation would also provide financial assistance to individual health care providers to stimulate investment in IT, and to communities to help them set up interoperable IT infrastructures at the local level, often referred to as Local Health Information Infrastructures--LHIIs. IT requires a huge capital investment. Many providers, especially small doctors offices, and safety-net and rural hospitals and health centers, simply cannot afford to make the type of investment that is needed.

Finally, this legislation would provide for the development of a standard

set of health care quality measures. The creation of these measures is critical to better understanding how our health care system is performing, and where we need to focus our efforts to improve the quality of care. IT has the potential to drastically improve our ability to capture these quality measures. All recipients of Federal funding under this bill would be required to regularly report on these measures, as well as the impact that IT is having on health care quality, efficency, and cost savings.

The establishment of standard quality measures is also the first step in moving our nation towards a system where payment for health care is more appropriately aligned--a system in which health care providers are paid not simply for the volume of patients that they treat, but for the quality of care that they deliver. To this end, my legislation would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to report to Congress on possible changes to Federal reimbursement and payment structures that would encourage the adoption of IT to improve health care quality and patient safety.

I know that many of my colleagues, including Senator Enzi, Senator Kennedy, Senator Clinton, Senator Frist and Senator Gregg, have an interest in this issue. I look forward to working with all of them to move legislation this year. It is time for our country to make a concerted effort to bring the health care sector into the 21st century. We must invest in health IT systems, and we must begin to do so immediately. The number uninsured, the skyrocketing cost of care, and the number of medical errors should all serve as a wake-up call. We have a tool at our disposal to address all of these problems, and there is no more time to waste. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Durbin and Stabenow to introduce GRAD, the Getting Results for Advanced Degrees Act. The purpose of this bill is to encourage students to pursue graduate education and to assist them in affording it.

The percentage of individuals pursuing graduate education has increased dramatically in recent decades as individuals seek the education and skills needed to participate in a global economy. In the last 25 years alone, graduate enrollment in the United States has increased by 38 percent bringing the number of graduate students in this country to 1.85 million.

The benefits of graduate education for our country are enormous. This year's graduate and professional students are the doctors, scientists, and inventors of tomorrow. Their ideas and innovations will be the basis of America's economic strength in the years to come. The benefits for individuals are significant as well. The median earnings of a worker with a master's degree are twice that of a high school graduate and $10,000 more than an individual with a bachelor's degree. The median earnings of a worker with a doctoral degree are 2\1/2\ times that of a high school graduate, $30,000 more than an individual with a bachelor's degree and $20,000 more than someone with a master's. An individual with a professional degree can expect to make three times the amount of a high school graduate, almost double the amount of an individual with a bachelor's, $35,000 more than individuals with a master's and $15,000 more than someone with a doctoral degree. Clearly, one's earning power increases, in some cases exponentially, with increasing education.

Despite the immediate and long-term benefits of graduate education for individuals and our Nation as a whole, graduate education is, for many, financially out of reach. In 2002-03 the average graduate school tuition at public institutions was $4,855 and $15,279 at private institutions. The average debt reported by graduate students today is $45,900. For medical students it is $115,000, for dental students it is $122,000 and for law students it is $86,000. These are astounding figures.

To increase access to graduate education, I have put together a series of proposals that will make graduate and professional school more accessible affordable for all qualified applicants, the Getting Results for Advanced Degrees Act. First, the GRAD Act raises the authorization levels of GAANN, the Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need Program and the Jacob Javits Fellowship Program so that there are more opportunities at more universities for students to pursue advanced degrees. GAANN supports graduate study in areas of national need such as chemistry, computer science, engineering, and physics, while the Jacob Javits Program helps support graduate study in the arts, humanities and social sciences.

To encourage greater participation by minority students in advanced programs the GRAD Act creates the Patsy T. Mink Fellowship Program. Named for former Congresswoman Patsy Mink, the first woman of Asian descent and the first woman of color to serve in the U.S. Congress, this program would offer assistance to underrepresented minorities pursuing doctoral degrees. It is fitting that such a program be named after Congresswoman Mink, a long-time champion for immigrants, minorities, women and children. I can think of no better tribute to her lifetime achievements than this program.

To help students afford the costs of graduation education, the GRAD Act expands the tax-exempt status of scholarships to treat reasonable room-and-board allowances as part of permitted higher education expenses. GRAD revises the cost of attendance calculations for financial aid for students with dependents to reflect the true cost-of- living expenses for themselves and the families that they support. GRAD also increases the unsubsidized Stafford loan limit for graduate and professional students from $10,000 to $12,000 so they are less likely to have to turn to more expensive private loans.

Mr. President, the Getting Results for Advanced Degrees Act will help students meet the financial challenges faced in pursuing graduate studies. The act strengthens programs that support graduate students in areas of vital importance to our nation and makes assistance available to underrepresented minority students pursuing a doctoral degree. By helping students to pursue and afford graduate education, the GRAD Act will help individuals, families and the nation as a whole recognize and achieve the important benefits of graduate education.

I hope my colleagues will join me in support of graduate education by supporting this bill. By working together, I believe that the Senate can act to ensure that more individuals are able to pursue graduate education and assist our nation in meeting the challenges faced in a global economy. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Durbin and Stabenow to introduce GRAD, the Getting Results for Advanced Degrees Act. The purpose of this bill is to encourage students to pursue graduate education and to assist them in affording it.

The percentage of individuals pursuing graduate education has increased dramatically in recent decades as individuals seek the education and skills needed to participate in a global economy. In the last 25 years alone, graduate enrollment in the United States has increased by 38 percent bringing the number of graduate students in this country to 1.85 million.

The benefits of graduate education for our country are enormous. This year's graduate and professional students are the doctors, scientists, and inventors of tomorrow. Their ideas and innovations will be the basis of America's economic strength in the years to come. The benefits for individuals are significant as well. The median earnings of a worker with a master's degree are twice that of a high school graduate and $10,000 more than an individual with a bachelor's degree. The median earnings of a worker with a doctoral degree are 2\1/2\ times that of a high school graduate, $30,000 more than an individual with a bachelor's degree and $20,000 more than someone with a master's. An individual with a professional degree can expect to make three times the amount of a high school graduate, almost double the amount of an individual with a bachelor's, $35,000 more than individuals with a master's and $15,000 more than someone with a doctoral degree. Clearly, one's earning power increases, in some cases exponentially, with increasing education.

Despite the immediate and long-term benefits of graduate education for individuals and our Nation as a whole, graduate education is, for many, financially out of reach. In 2002-03 the average graduate school tuition at public institutions was $4,855 and $15,279 at private institutions. The average debt reported by graduate students today is $45,900. For medical students it is $115,000, for dental students it is $122,000 and for law students it is $86,000. These are astounding figures.

To increase access to graduate education, I have put together a series of proposals that will make graduate and professional school more accessible affordable for all qualified applicants, the Getting Results for Advanced Degrees Act. First, the GRAD Act raises the authorization levels of GAANN, the Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need Program and the Jacob Javits Fellowship Program so that there are more opportunities at more universities for students to pursue advanced degrees. GAANN supports graduate study in areas of national need such as chemistry, computer science, engineering, and physics, while the Jacob Javits Program helps support graduate study in the arts, humanities and social sciences.

To encourage greater participation by minority students in advanced programs the GRAD Act creates the Patsy T. Mink Fellowship Program. Named for former Congresswoman Patsy Mink, the first woman of Asian descent and the first woman of color to serve in the U.S. Congress, this program would offer assistance to underrepresented minorities pursuing doctoral degrees. It is fitting that such a program be named after Congresswoman Mink, a long-time champion for immigrants, minorities, women and children. I can think of no better tribute to her lifetime achievements than this program.

To help students afford the costs of graduation education, the GRAD Act expands the tax-exempt status of scholarships to treat reasonable room-and-board allowances as part of permitted higher education expenses. GRAD revises the cost of attendance calculations for financial aid for students with dependents to reflect the true cost-of- living expenses for themselves and the families that they support. GRAD also increases the unsubsidized Stafford loan limit for graduate and professional students from $10,000 to $12,000 so they are less likely to have to turn to more expensive private loans.

Mr. President, the Getting Results for Advanced Degrees Act will help students meet the financial challenges faced in pursuing graduate studies. The act strengthens programs that support graduate students in areas of vital importance to our nation and makes assistance available to underrepresented minority students pursuing a doctoral degree. By helping students to pursue and afford graduate education, the GRAD Act will help individuals, families and the nation as a whole recognize and achieve the important benefits of graduate education.

I hope my colleagues will join me in support of graduate education by supporting this bill. By working together, I believe that the Senate can act to ensure that more individuals are able to pursue graduate education and assist our nation in meeting the challenges faced in a global economy. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator from California, I came over to hear my colleague's remarks. I appreciate her courtesy.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the nomination of John Bolton to be the U.S. Representative to the United Nations.

Let me begin, briefly, by stating what this nomination and debate is not about. It is not about reform at the United Nations. There is not a single Member of this body who I know of who does not agree with the notion that we ought to be doing everything we can to make the United Nations a stronger institution, a more meaningful one, in today's world, where more direct actions can be taken where problems exist around the world to make it more efficient, to function better. All of us agree with that, and all of us agree that whoever assumes this position as ambassador from the United States to the U.N. ought to play a critical role in that effort. That is not in question here. That is not a matter of debate.

What is also not a matter of debate is the style of the particular nominee in question. I think all of us in this city certainly respect the fact that some people's style is a little more brusque than others, can be a little more blunt

than others. I do not know of anyone, certainly on this side of the aisle--or that side, for that matter--who disagrees with a nominee because they do not particularly like their style, although they may have been particularly rough on some employees. We may not applaud it. We may not like it. We may think it is unwise and bad management style. But almost nobody in this Chamber on either side has objections to this nominee solely because of the question of reform at the United Nations or whether Mr. Bolton's style is objectionable or not.

My objection to this nomination focuses on one single issue. Members will have to decide for themselves whether they think this issue is of such importance that it would disqualify Mr. Bolton from the position he has now been nominated to or allow him to go forward.

The facts are no longer in debate. It is often said in this Chamber, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. The facts are overwhelming in terms of the allegation that Mr. Bolton, whatever his motivations may have been--and I suspect I know what they were--decided that because he disagreed with some intelligence analysts, he wanted them removed from their jobs.

I have never objected, nor would I--in fact, I agree with my colleague from Michigan who spoke so eloquently, that, in fact, there ought to be more debate between policy centers and intelligence analysts. What was missing during the debate on Iraq, as to the issue of weapons of mass destruction, was the absence of debate between policymakers and intelligence analysts. None of us, that I know of, disagree with the notion that there ought to be more debate. Where policy setters disagree with intelligence analysis, they ought to express that objection and tell people they think it is wrong. But if you go beyond just disagreeing, if you go beyond forceful debate, if you reach down and decide you are going to remove or try to remove an intelligence analyst from their position because you don't like what they are saying to you, that then crosses a line.

I don't care whether it is a Democratic administration or a Republican one. If this body, by a vote of confirmation says to a person who seeks the position of ambassador to the United Nations, that even though you have tried to fire intelligence analysts because you disagreed with their analysis, then I think we send a dreadful signal at the very time in the world that our credibility on intelligence is in question.

We all know that to be the case, regrettably. We have been through a dreadful period where intelligence was very wrong in assuming there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So the issue for this Senator is, did Mr. Bolton do this or not? And if he did, why are we even considering this nomination? Because anyone, regardless of the administration, their political persuasion or ideology, who tries to fire people, not debate, not disagree with them, not reprimand some higher official because he disagrees with what they are saying, but to reach down and fire an analyst at the CIA or the Department of State because you don't like what they were telling you, in my view, crosses a line.

This body has an obligation to the American public to stand up and say: We will not tolerate that.

This is far more important than Mr. Bolton. It is far more important even than this President or this Congress.

The issue goes far beyond any individuals. It goes to the heart of whether we are going to have credible intelligence which we, as Members of Congress, can believe, and our allies around the world, and from those we seek to find support on various foreign policies who will understand the purposes for which we are seeking their support. That is what I worry about more than anything else.

Yesterday I spoke on the floor about the availability of information. The reason I had requested, and that we have an expedited version of a cloture motion, doesn't have to do with whether or not Mr. Bolton should have an up or down vote. I want to have an up or down vote on Mr. Bolton. But I also believe this body has a right to information.

When the chairman of the Intelligence Committee and the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee are deprived the opportunity to read the names on the intelligence intercepts, the names Mr. Bolton could see, that his staff could see, but that the chairman of the Intelligence Committee and the ranking member, the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee are deprived the opportunity to see, then we are not getting the information we ought to have in order to make an intelligent decision.

The only vehicle I have available to me is to say, I am going to insist upon a 60-vote criteria unless you give us the information. It is 11:20. I am still waiting. There is no reason for us to have to have a cloture vote this afternoon. Instead, we can have a simple up-or-down vote on Mr. Bolton at 6 o'clock tonight, if in the next hour or two the administration would release those names to the chairman and ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, and the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and the information Senator Biden is seeking regarding the matter of the supposed weapons of mass destruction in Syria. There are not a lot of documents. It wouldn't take much time. But if we can't get those documents, if we are not being allowed to see the very things the nominee had a right to see, then I don't think we are being treated as a coequal branch of Government that has a right, through the appropriate means, with the appropriate members. I am not suggesting every member of the committees should see these names, but that the appropriate people we have designated historically have access to that kind of information for a nomination such as the one before us.

I am still hopeful that will happen. I am not so naive as to be unaware of what we have just been through in the debate about filibusters on Federal judges. I would not have brought up this nomination right now in the wake of that. I thought we were going to deal with Federal judges, not the nominee to the United Nations. But the majority, as is its right, sets the agenda. They have asked this Congress, this Senate to debate the issue of Mr. Bolton.

I am put in the position of saying: I guess after all of this you can do what you want and deny us that information. I would hope some of my Republican friends, despite the fact they are going to vote for Mr. Bolton, would vote with us on the cloture motion. I took some interest in the fact that even on the House Republican side, the difficulty that major committees of the Congress, both the House and the Senate, are having in getting information from this administration is growing. If we don't at some point stand up for our rights as a constitutionally designated coequal branch of Government, then this administration will receive the message that we don't care about this and that we can deny this Congress anything we want and they will do nothing about it.

So aside from how you feel about Mr. Bolton, yes or no, it is important for this institution to stand up for its rights and to demand this information as we have a right to.

I am hopeful we can still get the information and not have to go through a cloture vote at 6 o'clock this evening.

Let me get back to the subject matter of Mr. Bolton himself. The reasons for my concern are primarily focused on one issue. That is, of course, whether Mr. Bolton tried to fire people within the CIA and the State Department because he did not like the analysis they were giving him.

What is extraordinary about this nomination, first and foremost, is the number of people on whom we have relied, considering their status, who oppose this nomination. I would like to read the names. I am not suggesting all of these people are opposed to Mr. Bolton, but the basis upon which we have determined that Mr. Bolton tried to fire two intelligence analysts relied primarily on the names on this particular chart. I want to read the names and the positions they hold. It was these individuals, more than anything else, who made a significant difference in our conclusions that Mr. Bolton had, in fact, tried to fire these individuals.

John McLaughlin was the Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

These individuals are either presently members of the Bush administration, this President, or were formerly members of the Bush administration.

Larry Wilkerson was chief of staff to Secretary Colin Powell; Robert Hutchings, Chairman of the National Intelligence Council. The dates of their service are here. They are all dates that run roughly 2002, 2003, up to the present time, or just a month or so ago.

Stuart Cohen, Acting Chairman of the National Intelligence Council; Alan Foley, head of the CIA's Office of Weapons, Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control; Jamie Miscik, Deputy Director of Intelligence at the CIA; Thomas Hubbard, United States Ambassador to South Korea, a Bush appointee; John Wolf, Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation; Tom Fingar, Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research; Christian Westermann, analyst for the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research; Neil Silver, Office Director, Bureau of Intelligence and Research; INR supervisor, we don't use his name here, the immediate supervisor of Mr. Westermann; Fred Fleitz, acting chief of staff of John Bolton; Wil Taft, Department of State legal advisor; and a Department of State attorney whose name we are not using as well in the office of legal advisor.

These are 15 individuals either presently serving in the Bush administration or having previously served. It is on them that we relied. It is their damning statements that confirm without any question that Mr. Bolton essentially tried to have these intelligence analysts fired. They also provided other damaging information.

I have been a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for 24 years. Those who have served with me know it is rare, indeed, for this member to get up and object to a Presidential nomination, particularly one that is not a lifetime appointment. In fact, as my colleagues who have served with me for some time know, I have been one of only a handful who have supported nominees of Republican administrations. I was one of two Democrats who supported John Tower when he was nominated to be Secretary of Defense under President Bush's father. I supported John Ashcroft in the first administration of the current President Bush, one of only a handful of Democrats who did that.

I tried to recall an instance when I have taken such a strong objection to another nominee in 24 years. I can't recall one that has gone this far. I have had my objections to others, but they usually didn't reach this particular point. So it is uncomfortable for me to come to the floor to engage, over almost the last 2 months, in this nomination. But when you add the names of 102 former ambassadors, 15 present or former members of the Bush administration, these are not Democrats, these are not some left-wing organizations that are out there objecting to John Bolton. These are serious people who do a serious job, many of them career officials who have served our country with great distinction over the years. These individuals are the ones on whom we relied to draw their conclusion.

I am going to share with my colleagues their statements, not mine, not the names of some Democrats who might have some political motivation but, rather, people who care about our country, care about the United Nations, believe it needs reform, believe we need a strong person there to engage in that kind of reform, but believe John Bolton is not the person who ought to be receiving the nomination.

The committee did an extensive review of all the allegations related to this nominee. Committee staff, on a bipartisan basis, conducted more than 30 interviews of individuals with knowledge of the nominee. There was excellent cooperation on the part of most of those staff we sought to interview. I believe the work of this Senate has been assisted by these individuals who courageously came forward to answer questions and provide information that in many cases they would rather not have done. These individuals did not want to speak ill of another Republican or a former colleague. But they acted as dutiful citizens, patriots, and cooperated with the committee's efforts to fully explore matters related to the nomination of John Bolton. Regardless of how this Senate disposes of this nomination, these individuals have done a service to our country. We should honor them for doing so, for having the courage to come forward and to be honest when asked questions about this nominee.

Mr. Bolton's behavior clearly troubled a number of people who have worked directly with him over the last number of years.

Former Assistant Secretary of State Carl Ford, a self-proclaimed conservative Republican, described Mr. Bolton as ``the quintessential kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy.'' He also labeled Mr. Bolton a ``serial abuser.''

We did not hear from any people disabusing the committee of that view. That he has an abusive management style is problematic, but as I said at the outset, that would not be justification for voting against Mr. Bolton to be the ambassador to the United Nations. This is not about style. It is not about reform of the U.N. It is about whether this individual tried to fire intelligence analysts in his position as Under Secretary of State.

However, when Mr. Bolton harnesses that management style of his, as he has over the last 4 years, to affect intelligence judgments or to stifle the consideration of alternative policy opinions, then I think he has crossed the line over what is acceptable behavior. Why? Because those actions go directly to the heart of the integrity of U.S. intelligence and the firewall that must exist between policy and intelligence to ensure the integrity of that intelligence. Again, I emphasize, this is not about a disagreement. It is not about a policymaker disagreeing with an intelligence analyst.

Intelligence analysts do not speak ex cathedra. They are not sitting there coming to conclusions that we ought not to question. That is legitimate. In fact, we need more questioning. The issue is whether one ought to go beyond questioning and decide to remove someone because you disagree with their conclusions.

When this committee convened last month to consider the matter, we had irrefutable evidence--this is not conjecture--and this body has to decide whether you are going to send this man forward in the face of irrefutable evidence that on 5 different occasions over the past 48 months, Mr. Bolton tried to have 2 intelligence analysts removed from their jobs--one at the State Department and one at the CIA--because these individuals would not clear the language Mr. Bolton wanted to use, which was not supported by available intelligence.

I emphasize another point that needs to be made. When Mr. Bolton speaks as John Bolton, he can say whatever he wants. But when he gets up and says, ``I am speaking on behalf of the United States,'' then there is a different standard. When you speak on behalf of our country, you cannot just say anything you want. You have to rely on the best intelligence we have. You may disagree with that and you can fight over it, but in the final analysis you cannot offer your own opinions when you are expressing them as the U.S. views. You can say John Bolton believes this. If Mr. Bolton wants to speak to the Heritage Foundation and say, ``I believe the following,'' I may think he is profoundly wrong, but I would fight with my life for John Bolton to be able to say it. That is first amendment rights.

It is when Mr. Bolton gets up and says, ``I am speaking on behalf of the United States of America and I want to say the following,'' and then he absolutely contradicts what is being concluded by the intelligence analysts here, at that point, it seems to me he has a higher responsibility than he has shown.

Carl Ford's testimony was a watershed for me. Never in my 24 years as a Senator have I ever witnessed one high-ranking, former administration official testify as vociferously and as strongly as Mr. Ford did against a colleague. That is exactly what he did last month. Carl Ford made it clear why he did so. He believed Mr. Bolton's actions caused a chill among his intelligence analysts--so much so that the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, had to buck up the employees to assure them that they should not succumb to political pressure.

Because we have talked a lot about this, I used this chart in the Foreign

Relations Committee. I realize from a distance it looks like a lot of spaghetti. What it amounts to is the chart of the positions of the State Department, beginning with the Secretary of State, Deputy Secretary of State, Chief of State, Executive Secretary, and the various Under Secretary positions here. The third one is Mr. Bolton, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs. That is his responsibility, this group right here. He was in charge of the people who worked in this particular column.

Where did that intelligence analyst work? He worked down here. You have to go way down to the Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Research, Carl Ford, who was head of the INR. This intelligence analyst was down here; that is where Mr. Westermann worked. He was not directly in Mr. Bolton's line of command, but in a separate division. He is a GS-14 at this level.

You need to understand what happened here. This was a case where Mr. Bolton doesn't get ahold of Mr. Ford and say: I have a problem with your intelligence analyst because I disagree with what he said. I think he is wrong and I want to argue about it.

Mr. Bolton reaches down out of his line and drags this guy up to his office and begins to berate him for the job he has done. That is objectionable to me, and outrageous. If it ended there, that is dreadful behavior and nobody ought to do that without clearing what you want to say with the people who are responsible for that individual's work. If it ended there, maybe I would just vote against the nominee and I would not make the case on that basis alone. It is what happens afterward. It is not just berating. There is no doubt that there would be chill in the Department if an Under Secretary of State dragged an intelligence analyst to his office and word goes out. As we all know, in institutions the word flies around immediately. One of our fellow workers has been dragged up to the Under Secretary's office and screamed at because he didn't like his conclusions. That is why Colin Powell, the guy at the top, had to go down to these offices--down here on the chart--and explain to them that they did the right thing. You, Mr. Westermann, did the right thing. You are not supposed to succumb to political pressure. You tell people what they think they need to hear, and if they don't like it and disagree with you, that is one thing. But you did the right thing. It was wrong by implication, because why would the Secretary of State go down here and bring these analysts together and remind them that they had done their job if he felt Mr. Westermann being dragged up to Mr. Bolton's office was not wrong? That is why the Secretary of State did that. He went down there to tell those people not to worry about this, do your jobs. I think the Secretary was worried that the word would go out to these analysts that if you don't want to get in trouble, start to agree with Mr. Bolton when he disagrees with you; that is the easy thing to do. If he tells the analyst you ought to say the following, you better say that. If you do, you won't be brought up to his office and bellowed at. That is dangerous and that is one of the reasons we have such concern about this nomination.

As I said, this was the conclusion of Secretary Powell, according to Mr. Wilkerson, his chief of staff. Mr. Wilkerson, who was the chief of staff of Secretary Powell, testified before the staff of the Foreign Relations Committee the following: Secretary Powell ``went down into the bowels of the building and talked to people about not being inhibited by, or in any way fearful of, people on the seventh floor, or leadership in general, questioning their analyses or their statements or whatever.''

Mr. Bolton had a very selective recollection about his interactions and intentions with respect to intelligence analysts at the State Department and the CIA during his appearance before the committee.

Mr. Bolton told the committee:

I didn't seek to have these people fired. I didn't seek to

have discipline imposed on them. I said, ``I've lost trust in

them.'' And are there other portfolios they could follow. It

wasn't anything to me that I followed at great length. I made

my point and moved on.

Committee staff interviews and review of State and CIA documents paint a very different picture indeed. What is that picture?

First, with respect to Mr. Westermann. Six months after this event I have described on the chart with--this run-in occurred, Mr. Bolton was still seeking to have Mr. Westermann removed from his job as the biological weapons expert analyst at the Intelligence and Research Division of the State Department.

Mr. Bolton's recollection about what he did with respect to the CIA analyst was likewise clouded on April 11. As to the so-called ``Mr. Smith,'' as we called him to protect identity, Mr. Bolton said:

I had one part of one conversation with one person one time

on ``Mr. Smith,'' and that was it. I let it go.

We now know that much more than that occurred. Let me lay it out for you.

In addition to a meeting with the Acting Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, we now know from e-mails that Mr. Bolton considered raising the matter directly with the Director of the CIA, George Tenet. We know as well that he continued to conspire with former Assistant Secretary of State Otto Reich and his office for a period of 4 months after he first ``lost confidence'' in ``Mr. Smith'' to have him removed from his job.

Also under consideration by Mr. Reich and Bolton were other punitive measures--we know this now--such as denial of country clearance for Mr. Smith's official travel throughout Latin America, banning him from all meetings held in their bureaus. And the ultimate act of pettiness-- consider revoking his State Department building pass.

I am not making this stuff up. He said he had ``one part of one conversation with one person one time, and I let it go.''

Hardly. The facts are overwhelming here regarding what he tried to do both at the State Department and the CIA.

We have also learned that other intelligence analysts were having difficulties with Mr. Bolton's office.

Jami Miscik, Deputy Director for Intelligence, 2002 to 2005, in the Bush administration, told the committee staff that Mr. Bolton had a reputation for being difficult to deal with. She noted that ``interaction between policymakers and the intelligence community usually goes more smoothly than it often did . . . in the cases with Mr. Bolton . . . It is rare that . . . a single policymaker is known for having . . . pretty regularly contentious kinds of issues in this regard.''

We know as well that expert intelligence officials disapproved of and resisted Mr. Bolton's efforts to ``cherry-pick'' intelligence for ideological purposes.

Dean Hutchings, Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, 2003 to 2005, described the ``cherry-picking'' problem in the context of what Mr. Bolton wanted the Intelligence Committee to bless with respect to Syria's weapons of mass destruction capabilities:

Mr. Bolton took isolated facts and made much more of them

to build a case than I thought the intelligence warranted. It

was a sort of cherry picking of little factoids and little

isolated bits that were drawn out to present the starkest

possible case.

We also know that Deputy Secretary Armitage didn't trust Mr. Bolton's judgments when it came to making public speeches. We have heard this from others, such as George Voinovich, as well as Carl Levin, as well as Barbara Boxer and others, who have spoken on this matter.

Mr. Wilkerson, Secretary Powell's chief of staff, told the committee:

There were problems on a number of occasions with Under

Secretary Bolton's proposed remarks. . . . The Deputy, Mr.

Armitage, made a decision and communicated that decision to

me, that John Bolton would not give any testimony, nor would

he give any speech, that wasn't cleared first by Rich

Armitage.

With all of the other duties Deputy Secretary Armitage had in managing the Department in Secretary Powell's absence, he also felt he had to babysit Mr. Bolton because the normal clearance procedures established by the Department didn't work with Mr. Bolton. Yet, this body is now being asked to vote to send Mr. Bolton to New York, where he will be unsupervised on a daily basis. Lord only knows the kind of problems that can ensue with Mr. Bolton, given his past performance.

Individuals under Bolton's direct line of authority also took issue with the

rigidity of his views. John Wolf, former Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation and a career diplomat, told committee staff that Mr. Bolton ``tended to hold onto his own views strongly and . . . he tended not to be enthusiastic about alternative views. And he did not encourage us to provide our views to the Secretary.''

Again, I am not arguing about someone's style here. But when you have 125 employees at the U.N. and the only things you want to hear are the things you agree with, that is a management style that is dangerous for a person who is going to work with all of the nations we have to build relationships with in the U.N. We all do this as Senators. We know when a staff member gets up and wants to tell us an alternative view, it is uncomfortable. We would like them to agree with us. We also know how vitally important it is as Senators that people in our offices who have the willingness to stand up and know when they do, they are not going to be threatened with their jobs, or considered for removal because they are telling us something we don't want to hear. We understand the value of that. Mr. Bolton doesn't. That is dangerous.

Mr. Wolf said:

Some of the officers within the nonproliferation bureau

complained that they felt undue pressure to conform to the

views of the Under Secretary, versus the views that they

thought they could support.

That is a dangerous statement, that we have somebody who is about to take on a position who would make others feel they were unfit or are being pressured to conform their views.

All of these matters I have just mentioned cause me grave concern about this nomination. But what troubled me the most were the devastating comments made by Secretary Powell's chief of staff, Mr. Wilkerson, an individual who on a day-to-day basis was in a position to know what was going on in the Department and what foreign policy challenges the Secretary of State was attempting to manage.

This is what he has to say about Mr. Bolton's single-minded preoccupation with sanctioning every Chinese entity he could find which might have violated nonproliferation standards:

Are we actually stopping China's proliferation through

sanctions that was dangerous to our interests? Or are we

doing it, and ignoring problems that cry out for cures,

diplomatic? The one time I had a conversation with John about

this, I asked him, ``How do you go beyond sanctions, John?

War?'' Mr. Bolton replied, ``It is not my business.''

Mr. Wilkerson also explained to our committee staff why he believes Mr. Bolton is ill suited for the U.N. position. I am quoting Mr. Wilkerson, Secretary Powell's chief of staff. This is not some liberal left-leaning Senator or Congressman or columnist talking about Mr. Bolton. This is the former chief of staff of a Republican Secretary of State under George Bush--this President's administration:

One, I think he's a lousy leader. And there are 100 to 150

people up there at the United Nations that have to be led;

they have to be led well, and they have to be led properly.

And I think, in that capacity, if he goes up there--

Speaking about Mr. Bolton--

you'll see the proof of the pudding in a year.

Second, I differ with a lot of people in Washington, as to

his brilliance. I didn't see it. I saw a man who counted

beans . . . had no willingness--and in many cases no capacity

to understand other things that were happening around those

beans. And that is just a recipe for problems at the United

Nations.

These are very serious conclusions from an individual who was a loyal and trusted member of Secretary Powell's team, and they go to the heart of whether Mr. Bolton has the capacity to carry out his duties at the United Nations. This is not about whether we like the nominee's views on the United Nations, arms control, or Cuba. He is entitled to his personal views about any of those matters, and he should not be disqualified from any office because he has them. But for the interests of the United States to be served at the United Nations, there has to be a balance between ideology and pragmatism.

The individual on the spot in New York will be called upon, from time to time, to strike that balance. He also must have the credibility to make the best case for the United States before that international body. These things are at the heart of effective diplomacy.

Ambassador Negroponte was able to strike that balance between ideology and pragmatism and have the credibility to make the case of the United States before the U. N. Security Council. Senator John Danforth, a former colleague, was able to do so as well.

Based on what we have learned about Mr. Bolton in recent days, I seriously doubt he is willing or able to strike that balance, and I now know, given his penchant for stretching intelligence and pressuring analysts, that his credibility will be challenged by other U.N. members.

Our colleagues brush aside this problem by saying Mr. Bolton will be getting his instructions from Secretary Rice. Mr. President, that is just not realistic at all. Much of the guidance that is developed for our U.N. ambassadors is developed cooperatively between Washington and New York. What gets said at the United Nations by a representative is, in large measure, shaped by our reporting from our mission in New York. I feel Mr. Bolton will be incapable of making the kind of judgments that move the diplomatic process forward.

We all know these are difficult times. Our responsibilities in Iraq and Afghanistan are significant and costly. Other challenges to international peace and stability loom large on the horizon--Iran, North Korea, the Middle East. The humanitarian crises in Africa and Asia cry out for attention. The United States cannot solve these problems all by ourselves. We know that. We need tremendous international assistance and cooperation to address them, and the logical focal point for addressing that international support is the United Nations. It makes sense.

But international support will not be automatically forthcoming and will require, as we all know, U.S. leadership at the U.N. to build the case for such cooperation. That U.S. leadership must necessarily be embodied in the individual who serves as our ambassador to the United Nations is obvious.

Based on what I know today about Mr. Bolton, I believe he is incapable of demonstrating that kind of leadership. The ambassador to the United Nations is a very important position. The individual who assumes that position is necessarily the face of our country before the world.

For all the reasons I have cited--Mr. Bolton's management style, his attack on the intelligence community, his tunnel vision, his lack of diplomatic temperament--I do not believe he is our man to be the face at the United Nations.

But of all those reasons, I come back to the one I made at the outset. It is not about style, it is not about reform at the United Nations, it is not about Mr. Bolton's views on a variety of subject matters. Our colleagues have to make a decision. We now know, categorically, without any question whatsoever, that this nominee tried to fire intelligence analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of State. That evidence comes from his own colleagues, from people with whom he has served, not from outside groups or members of this body.

The decision for our colleagues today is whether or not we promote someone who has done that and what message it sends to the analyst community, what message it sends to our allies, and what message it sends to our adversaries, for that matter, around the globe. That this individual who engaged in such reprehensible behavior, in my view, should be given the position of U.N. ambassador to represent the United States at this critical hour, I think is a massive mistake.

Again, I am still hopeful that in the remaining hours of this debate, the administration will see fit to provide the additional information for which we have asked for almost 2 months. I regret deeply having to ask my colleagues to vote on a cloture motion. I have said, if cloture is invoked, we will vote immediately on Mr. Bolton. If it is not invoked, it will layover, and we will continue to try to get the information.

I have no desire to filibuster this nomination. I do have a desire to see the Senate stand up for its rights when it seeks information-- information the nominee had access to but the chairmen and ranking members of the Intelligence Committee and Foreign Relations Committee were denied. That is a precedent we need not make with this decision.

My hope is our colleagues will support the opposition on the cloture motion and, if we get a vote on Mr. Bolton today, we reject this nominee. There are many qualified, blunt, forceful people who can assume this job who embrace the President's view on foreign policy and who will do a very good job at the United Nations. John Bolton is not that individual.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I will be happy to yield.

Mr. President, in response to my friend and colleague from Maryland, that is exactly the point.

Mr. President, if I may respond to my colleague from Maryland, I was going to recite to him--because I think some of my colleagues may think this Senator from Connecticut has raised this issue in the last 24 hours as a delaying tactic--I want to point out to my colleagues the chronology which begins actually on April 11-- approaching 2 months ago. Then there were subsequent requests on April 14, April 22, April 29, May 4, May 18, as well as even as late, as of course, we all know, yesterday.

I want to make it clear that from very early on, we tried to get this information. I emphasize, again, these are names Mr. Bolton has seen, his staff has seen, and we are not asking every Member see, only the ranking members and the chairmen of the Intelligence Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee, to let them know whether or not the names coincide with the names of people we have run across in our examination of Mr. Bolton to be a nominee to the U.N.

The chairman of the Intelligence Committee will tell you they had an interview with General Hayden and he showed them some documents. But in his letter to our colleagues last evening, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee very honestly pointed out that the names of the 19 individuals in the 10 intercepts he sought are redacted. The only pertinent information is those names and the motivation Mr. Bolton had in seeking that information.

The heart of the request--even the Intelligence Committee chairman cannot see it. Yet Mr. Bolton could see it, his staff could see it. But the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is not allowed to see it. Every Senator ought to be outraged about that. If we let them get away with it here, they will get away with it every single day hereafter. Either we stand up for our rights as a Senate, as a coequal branch of Government, or we do not.

Yes, I yield.

Again, the Senator from Maryland is absolutely correct. These issues come back and come around and the word spreads: You can get away with this. It is not just this administration. The Senator is correct. Future administrations will use this as an example of why they do not have to comply with the request because previous Congresses allowed this information to be kept secret when Senate committees were seeking it.

Mr. President, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

I ask unanimous consent that the remaining time I have be divided between the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Massachusetts. The Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, also asked for time. I had 60 minutes, and want to give up some time.

I have a little less than 20 minutes remaining. What I want to do is give the 20 minutes I have left to my colleagues to use. Mr. President, I make that request, that the time remaining be divided between the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Massachusetts.

And Senator Reed from Rhode Island also seeks some of that time. Just Senator Reed and Senator Kennedy. The Senator Maryland has time.

Mr. President, again, I commend my friend and colleague. I don't want to do this too frequently. I am afraid I may hurt his reputation in certain quarters. I want to tell him how much I admire what he has done over the last number of weeks and did so so that the people of Ohio and America understand this. This was not a decision that my colleague from Ohio reached quickly. In fact, I recall vividly the day in room 116 where we made our case. It was one of those rare moments that we don't see often enough around here these days, where the Senator from Ohio said: I am troubled by this. I want to know more.

I was tempted a couple of times during the period between that hearing on April 18 or 19 and when we reconvened again in early May as part of the Foreign Relations Committee to consider this nomination. I decided the best thing I could do was to leave the Senator from Ohio alone and let him go through the process himself of deciding on the concerns that had been raised. As he so appropriately pointed out--I tried to make the point this morning myself--these allegations are not coming from some outside groups who have a vested political interest in the outcome.

Many of these people were people who were presently there or have just left the present administration or they have had the experience of working with the nominee. They were the ones who raised the concerns. In fact, at lunch today, we were talking about North Korea with several former career diplomats who have worked with the nominee, including in this administration. I asked them for any observations. They confirmed what the Senator has said.

They had complimentary things to say about Mr. Bolton, as well. I am not saying there are not qualities about this nominee that are good. He is certainly a well-educated individual, and he has an incredibly attractive life story of where he has come from. But they all made the same point the Senator from Ohio made, and it deserves being made again. I raised the issue about the intelligence analyst. But the Senator is absolutely correct. In this day and age, what we have been through over the last several years, having people who can help us take unwilling nations that may be cautious about joining us in certain things, for all the reasons we are familiar with, and to be able to build those coalitions around issues critical to us and to peace and stability in the world, is going to be absolutely essential. The U.N. is a forum particularly for smaller nations.

Large nations have big delegations here in Washington, and we go back and forth to major European allies and the major countries in the Pacific rim. For an awful lot of countries, the best forum for them is the U.N. The person who interfaces with those people on a daily basis can do a tremendous amount of good for our country with that notion-- the face of public diplomacy that the Senator from Ohio talked about.

I wanted to, once again, thank my colleague for his willingness to share his feelings with his colleagues about this, and we are going to have a vote this afternoon, only because I felt it was important for us to be able to have information that should be forthcoming. It is a matter of right here on a cloture motion and, if that succeeds, we will go right to a vote on Mr. Bolton. If not, it will lay over and when we get back, if we don't invoke cloture, we will deal with it fairly quickly when we return and we will move on.

I hope Members will have listened, particularly on the majority side. I suspect that when you hear some of us, you may say that is a bunch of Democrats talking. I regret that that is the feeling, but if you are not impressed with what some of us who have worked on the issues for many years feel about it, listen to George Voinovich from Ohio. This is a good person who cares about the status of the United States and about this matter before us. I thank the Senator.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, before our friend from Arkansas leaves the floor, let me also say, if his children are watching, they should be very proud of their father. I have had the privilege of serving with the Senator's father. In fact, we sat next to each other as I arrived here as a freshman Senator. The Pryor and Dodd families go back for some time.

I want you to know that what you and your 13 colleagues did last week--and nobody can say for certain where this is going to lead, but you have given this institution an opportunity to continue its tradition of providing the one place in Government where all voices can be heard. That is not true in anyplace in the executive branch, necessarily, or the judicial branch. And even in the legislative branch, in the other body, the majority rules.

The Senate is the one place where all voices must be listened to. Because of what you and our 13 other colleagues--6 other Democrats and 7 Republicans--were willing to sit down and try to fashion, we have been given a chance to live up to the longstanding, historic traditions of this place in which we have been privileged to have been elected to serve. There have been 1,884 of us in 218 years who were chosen by our States to represent their interests and the Nation in the Senate. I can just say to my friend from Arkansas, you will be involved in a lot of issues during what I hope is a long career for you here in the years ahead. You will look back, and there will only be a handful of moments that will stand out, and I am willing to predict that what you, Senators McCain, Nelson, Lieberman, Collins, Byrd, Warner, Graham, Snowe, DeWine, Landrieu, Salazar, Chafee, and Inouye have done will remain one of the important memories. You will look back and think of the things you have been involved in and, hopefully, the list will be long.

As one Senator who was not involved in the negotiations you went through but was watching them carefully--and again, we cannot say with certainty where it is going to lead--I commend you and history will commend you for what you are doing. I love the idea that you did it for your family and your children. They will look back with pride on the service of their father.

Mr. President, we went through a little bit of a turmoil here. Obviously, coming in the wake of this negotiation, I suppose some people's eyebrows may be raised, wondering how can we do that compromise and then end up with an awkward situation on the Bolton nomination, which became contentious for a few minutes. I will add my voice to that.

My fervent hope is that people will not misunderstand the intentions of 24 Senators, and others, when we raised the question going back to April 11 about certain information. All of my colleagues are not familiar with all of the details of the case, although the Presiding Officer was very much a part of the discussion we have had over the last couple of months. Whether we are for or against the nomination, the point I was trying to make is that an institution--the Senate--has a right to certain information when it involves a pertinent matter before it.

It has been a historic struggle between the executive and legislative branches. There is always that tension between these two branches of Government over access to information. Regardless of one's political affiliation, whether you are in the majority or the minority, no matter what administration is in the White House, my experience over 2\1/2\ decades, serving under every imaginable configuration, is that it is always healthy to insist on information that the institution thinks is important for its consideration of a matter--be it substantive or the executive branch calendar.

I want to say to my colleagues, those who have gone through this process of negotiations that avoided the constitutional crisis regarding extended debate, what happened here in the last few hours is not in any way disruptive of what occurred during those negotiations. It is my strong hope and desire that the information we seek will be forthcoming in the next few days, that the committees can analyze it all, and when we return to this body after the break, the matter of John Bolton can come before this body and we will have an up-or-down vote on the nomination, as it should be. It is my strong desire that that be the outcome.

This was not intended, in any way, to engage in a filibuster but strictly to determine whether this institution would say to the executive branch, respectfully: This is information we believe we need. We are asking you to provide it in an orderly way to those Members who are entitled to this information--the chair of the Intelligence Committee, the ranking Democrat, the chair of the Foreign Relations and ranking Democrat--for them to determine whether there is relevancy to this information as it pertains to this nomination.

Again, I thank the majority leader. It probably doesn't help his cause to hear this, but Bill Frist made a serious effort over the last couple of days, not that he necessarily even supported the request, but he certainly conveyed the request in a serious way to leaders within the executive branch. I thank him for that. He didn't have to do that, and he did. I regret that the administration didn't reply in an orderly way, which could have avoided all of this in the last 48 hours. I hope they will take this seriously. I say to my friends on the majority side, having been in your shoes in other administrations, it can happen.

There is always this tension between these two branches of Government about information. We need to be clear about it. We have a constitutional responsibility, where appropriate, to seek information that is important for our consideration.

So it is my fervent hope that we go away for a few days and recognize, as so eloquently Senator Salazar said, speaking about his father, a World War II veteran, insisting upon being buried in his uniform, that we recognize those who have given a lot more to provide the freedoms we enjoy as Americans, that we are very much living up to what they fought and died for over this Memorial Day break as we recognize their contributions. They fought and died for exactly what we are doing here.

This doesn't happen miraculously. A democracy is won by each and every generation in this country. There is no guarantee that it exists in perpetuity. Each generation of Americans will confront, one way or another, a challenge to our democratic values and principles. Certainly, the generation that fought and died for this country over the years has proven that categorically.

We are going to be challenged as well from time to time. So I fervently hope--and Members who have served with me know I am the least comfortable with getting involved in opposing a nominee. The only trouble I have gotten into in nominations is when I have been for nominees to the disappointment of colleagues on this side. I was told I had no business to be for John Ashcroft and John Tower. I am not comfortable not being for somebody. I took the position I did, and I hope we can resolve this matter over the next few days and get back to the business of voting up or down and move on to other business that is important to our constituents.

I was heartened to hear that Democrats and Republicans were able to work out differences on an energy bill. That is going to be exciting to deal with; it is an issue in which our constituents are interested. I would be remiss in not recognizing the Presiding Officer in the tremendous work he has done, along with Senator Jeffords and Senator Reid and Senator Baucus. There is a lot of work in front of you. Those are the issues we need to work together on here. So while there may be some bruised feelings right away over a vote we just took, I hope we can put those behind us and resolve the

matter and get about doing the business the people sent us here to do.

To my colleagues, I wish them a healthy, happy, and safe Memorial Day, and I look forward to seeing them on our return here and moving forward with the business at hand.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wanted to take a second to say to my friend and colleague from Ohio, I have been through a lot of this debate over the last several weeks and months. A lot of things are going on today, but I hope my colleagues and others--if they have not had a chance to listen to my colleague from Ohio--will read his comments. They are heartfelt. I know the feeling. I remember several occasions, but there was a time when I was one of two Democrats to support John Tower many years ago, when he was being considered for the nomination as Secretary of Defense. I supported John Ashcroft to be Attorney General from the previous administration.

I know when you are being different and standing up and going against the tide from people on your own side, it can be a lonely moment. I know what it feels like to be there. If you do it out of conviction and belief and because of how important these issues are, then I think all of us, regardless of where you

come out on the issue, appreciate the courage and the determination of a Member who does it.

I am comfortable with my colleagues' remarks, with his position. As I told him the other day, I have been here a long time now--24 years in the Senate--and there are moments like this when I am deeply proud to serve with my colleagues. George Voinovich and I don't agree on a lot of issues. We are of different political persuasions and parties. But my respect for him as a Member of this body is tremendous. Whether you agree with George Voinovich or not, this is a Senator.

Will the Senator yield?

Let me thank my colleague from West Virginia who holds the very difficult position, along with Senator Roberts, of being the ranking member and chairman, respectively, of the Intelligence Committee. It is a very difficult job.

For those who have served some time, we appreciate immensely the tremendous difficulty of trying to manage and handle the information that comes their way. I am particularly grateful to my colleague for his comments here today regarding the issue of the intelligence analysts and the handling of very delicate information.

As my colleague from West Virginia knows, and I state this in the form of a question, Senator Biden, obviously, and Senator Lugar, going back to April 11, have requested information regarding the intercepts that the Senator from West Virginia has just described, along with other information from the State Department regarding testimony that Mr. Bolton was to give before a House committee dealing with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We have been unable the last number of weeks to get the necessary information from the administration regarding these allegations.

As such, we are asking the administration today if they would not be forthcoming with that information, to give the chairman and the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee unredacted versions of these intercepts, along with the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee--not all members of the committee, not all Members of the Senate. I believe this is the normal operating procedure when matters like this arise, that requests are made of the administration for information and they go to selected, designated members to review, to determine whether there is something that as Members of this body we ought to be aware of in the consideration--relevant information in the consideration of a nomination.

My question is, Is this an inappropriate request from the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from Indiana, to get unredacted versions, to go to the Intelligence Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee for them to be able to review, to determine whether they would be relevant to this nomination?

Let me further ask my colleague, if I may, as I understand it, when a policymaker requests of the National Security Administration the raw data on an intercept, there must be a written explanation for why the policy center or policymaker is seeking that information; is that not correct?

That was my second question. Was that available to the ranking member and the chairman of the Intelligence Committee?

I thank my colleague and I appreciate again his comments.

I will be very brief in my comments this afternoon. I notice there are other Members here. I saw my friend from Virginia, Senator Allen, in the Chamber. Senator Coleman of Minnesota has already spoken, but he may want to speak. I think Senator Levin of Michigan may be coming over shortly.

I will reserve for tomorrow further discussion of the nominee himself and the reasons for my objection for this nomination going forward, but, rather, I will focus in these brief minutes, if I may, on where we are and the procedural situation in which we find ourselves.

I say to my colleagues it is awkward. We have just come through a rather contentious period in the history of the Senate over the last number of days dealing with how we deal with executive branch nominees. It would not have been my choice to have this matter come up in the midst of all this or in the wake of all of this. I would have preferred we had dealt with judicial nominations, which I thought was the primary rationale for the crisis we ran into over the extended debate rule.

However, it is clearly the choice and the right of the majority, in my view, to set the agenda. As such, they have set the agenda to bring Mr. Bolton's nomination up before the Senate rather than additional judicial nominations before the Memorial Day recess.

I have been asked and objected to a unanimous consent request that would have allowed for an up-and-down vote on Mr. Bolton at some point tomorrow afternoon. I have said to the majority leader and the minority leader, it is not my intention at all to filibuster this nomination. That is not what I want to have occur at all.

I have suggested we ask the administration, once again, would they be forthcoming and give us this information about the National Security Agency intercepts to go just to Senator Rockefeller, Senator Roberts, Senator Lugar, and Senator Biden for review to determine what, if any, information in those 10 intercepts involving 19 names of American citizens that might have some relevancy to the nomination of Mr. Bolton. That request has been rejected since April 11, basically, and there have been numerous requests.

The second request involves a request that Senator Biden has expressed a strong interest in detailed information regarding testimony of the weapons of mass destruction in Syria that was to be the subject of congressional testimony by Mr. Bolton. That information is also being sought.

I commend and thank the majority leader, by the way. Earlier today in my conversations with him, I expressed that I had no desire to filibuster this nomination but would he transmit the request--I am not suggesting he support the request--but would he transmit the request to the appropriate personnel at the State Department or the White House regarding this information. Graciously, the majority leader has said he would do so, and I presume he has.

No cloture motion has yet been filed, but it is my understanding, because it is the way I framed the request, that I would not insist upon a normal period of time to expire before a cloture motion could be invoked, or could be raised, nor would I insist that there be an adequate amount of time after the cloture motion, if it were invoked, be required, the 30 hours of debate; but, rather, we would truncate all of that some time tomorrow afternoon to give everyone an exact time to express themselves on either the motion to invoke cloture or on the nomination itself.

If we are unable to get this data, information, which has been requested now for 6 weeks, I will urge my colleagues not to invoke cloture. I would do so most reluctantly, and I urge my colleagues, regardless of feelings about the nominee.

This is what I want to address. We all have had strong views on Mr. Bolton. I see my friend from Virginia. He has been eloquent in his defense of Mr. Bolton, as has my friend from Minnesota.

I listened to the remarkable speech given by our colleagues: Senator Voinovich of Ohio, Senator Biden, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Rockefeller, and others. There are strong feelings about this nomination. But put aside your strong feelings about the nominee and think for a minute about what we are asking for as an institution; that is, data that pertains to this nomination.

I noted with some interest earlier today that one of the newspapers that covers Capitol Hill reported that a House Appropriations Committee, obviously under the control of the Republicans--the majority--was expressing a similar problem in getting information out of the administration on matters they thought were important.

I do not think this desire to deprive the committees of information on Mr. Bolton is unique. I believe it is a pattern that we, as Members of this coequal branch of Government, must defend ourselves on, that if the administration--this administration or any administration--believes they can successfully deprive legitimate requests for information pertaining to a matter that is before us, particularly one that invokes as much debate as this nomination has, then we all suffer. Whether you are for Mr. Bolton or against Mr. Bolton is not the point. The point is, we ought to have a right to have information given to us, under controlled circumstances--not to the availability

of every Member under every circumstance but we have set up mechanisms which allow us to have information to determine its relevancy to something such as this.

Consider, if you will--I am speaking hypothetically now, obviously-- that the administration deprives us of this information, the Senate invokes cloture, and there is then a vote to confirm Mr. Bolton and in a matter of days or weeks we discover that the very information requested is so damming that every Member of this body would have been against the nomination had they known the information at the time of the vote. There is the possibility of that, I would suggest to my colleagues, or I would not have requested the information.

How would we feel institutionally at that point if we did not stand up for ourselves as Senators in insisting that this administration--or any administration when there was a legitimate request for information pertaining to a nomination such as this--ought to be forthcoming, and we ought not to have to go through the parliamentary procedures and debates and invoking various tactics in order to put pressure, in order to get this information? It seems to me that ought to be forthcoming. For those reasons, I am grateful to the majority leader for transmitting the request.

I have also said, just to complete this, that if, in fact, cloture is invoked, that then I am prepared to vote immediately thereafter on the Bolton nomination. To make my point, I am not anxious for an extended debate or filibuster beyond cloture. Obviously, if cloture is not invoked, then my assumption would be the matter would go over until after the Memorial Day recess, in which case we might have some additional time to solicit the information we are seeking.

My preference would be we get the information. We still have time. It is only 5:30 in the evening tonight. If the administration would say: Listen, we can give you this information--even if we do not get it until tomorrow morning, there ought to be adequate enough time, from tomorrow morning to the afternoon, by the appropriate committees to go over the unredacted versions of this--by the way, not crossing out the names of the very people we want to know--who they are--in addition to the rationale for the request, so we can make a determination as to whether those intercepts, and the requests of them, have pertained to Mr. Bolton's determination to punish certain people in the intelligence branch of the State Department because of their analysis that Mr. Bolton had some difficulty with.

Also, of course, there is the request that Senator Biden is calling upon; that is, whether there was some effort here to cook up the books regarding the weapons of mass destruction or the allegation of weapons of mass destruction in Syria.

That is not going to be that hard. It could be done in a matter of hours, and we could then vote on Mr. Bolton's nomination by tomorrow afternoon, up or down, one way or the other. I would hope my colleagues would join in this effort. If we tell the administration as a body that we have a right to this information, I would wage anything to my colleagues that the administration would be forthcoming with it. It is because they believe there are more than 40 Senators here who will vote to invoke cloture that they will not provide the information. The minute they think we might insist upon seeing it, I think the information will be forthcoming.

There are those who have told me, by the way, as a general matter that while this was an extraordinary request in some sense, in others it may not have been an extraordinary request. I am thinking about Mr. Bolton's request now. So there may very well be there is nothing in these requests that should cause any of us any concern. It may be true, as well, regarding the Syria allegations. If that is the case, then there is nothing to fear by any of this to bring it up. But in the meantime, institutionally, in my view, as Senators representing a coequal branch of Government, when there is a legitimate request for information and an appropriate and proper means by which we receive and handle that information, it ought to be forthcoming. When we fail to insist upon that, in any administration, we weaken the ability of this place to do its job. That is really what is at stake in the debate here more than anything else at this moment.

Now, there will, obviously, be further debate about Mr. Bolton. We all know that. We have been through it. Those of us who serve on this committee have had hours of debate on this issue. I suspect my friends from Virginia and Minnesota could quote my remarks about Mr. Bolton, as I could theirs. We have listened to each other for countless hours about this issue. Our colleagues will soon get the benefit of these remarks as we repeat them again in the next 24 hours or so.

That is not the issue tonight for this Senator. The issue for this Senator tonight is, does the Senate, as a body, when there is a nomination before it--when there is critical information that serious Members of this body believe is pertinent to the debate before us-- should we have the ability under controlled circumstances to access that information? If my colleagues believe the answer is no and the administration is not forthcoming, then you ought to invoke cloture. If you believe we ought to have a right to this information, even though you support the nominee, as a matter of principle, as U.S. Senators charged under the Constitution to be responsible for the confirmation of high-level Federal employees and nominees, then it seems to me our answer, despite our views about the nominee, ought to be yes and to say with one voice: We support the nominee--if we do--but, Mr. President, in your administration, it is appropriate that you be forthcoming on the request.

There is the chairman of the Intelligence Committee and the ranking member, and there is the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and the ranking Democrat--four Senators. For them to get the unredacted versions of these intercepts and the information regarding Syria is not some breach of intelligence. Remember, Mr. Bolton and his staff had access to this information. They could read those names. They know what is in it. Does some Under Secretary of State have more rights than the Senator from Virginia or the Senator from Minnesota or the Senator from Connecticut or the Senator from Kansas? I don't think so.

Mr. President, I will conclude just by saying I would hope my colleagues would consider this, and rather than get to the point tomorrow night of having to invoke cloture, would they not even quietly ask the administration to be forthcoming? We do not need to go through this. We could have a vote on Mr. Bolton up or down tomorrow afternoon, one way or the other, and avoid this precedent-setting circumstance where legitimate information is not forthcoming. That is the point I wanted to make this evening.

I thank the Chair and thank my colleagues.

Will my colleague yield before he leaves the floor?

I thank my colleague for doing so. Let me preface my question to him by telling him how much--as I said to Senator Rockefeller, I have great admiration and respect for the work the chairman and the ranking member do.

It is a very difficult committee and I respect immensely my colleagues' efforts there. I note in my friend's letter which he has provided and read in detail to us, there was a reference--and to be quite candid, I think I am the Senator the Senator is

referencing here because I am the Senator who raised the question during the Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing of Mr. Bolton. Here my colleague says, and I am quoting now from page 4, the last paragraph of the Senator's letter to Senator Lugar, and I am getting down near the end of it, maybe the last sentence of that paragraph: It is for this reason that I was a bit surprised and dismayed when a member of your committee--speaking of this Senator-- broached this issue in the course of your public confirmation hearings. Normally intelligence sources and methods are discussed only in closed session.

I will ask unanimous consent that the transcript of the question I raised to Mr. Bolton at that particular time be printed in the Record.

The question was basically a very simple one. The question was: I want to know whether you requested to see NSA information about other American officials? That is the question. There was no reference to sources and methods. A simple question: Did you request to see this information, yes or no?

And he went on to answer the question.

Now, I ask the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, is that an inappropriate question to ask of a nominee? It was a simple question: I want to know whether you requested to see NSA information about any other American officials? Mr. Bolton's answer is: Yes, on a number of occasions I can think of, and he goes on to talk about it.

My point of your letter is, there is a discussion that this Senator was acting inappropriately because I was seeking methods and sources. The only question I asked of Mr. Bolton in that public hearing was: Did you make such a request? Does my colleague believe I was violating some procedures regarding the gathering of intelligence by asking that simple question?

I agree with my colleague.

Well, I understand that. It is just that this Senator in this--

If he would yield, this sentence in this letter suggests that this Senator--because I am the one who asked the question--crossed the line. Let me read my whole question.

I am the only one who asked the question that day.

I am the only one who asked the question of Mr. Bolton. I asked the question in this way: I want to read the question because I want to make sure I do not overstep a line here, and then I asked the question: Did you . . .

My concern is that there is a suggestion, as the one who asked the question, that I had somehow--and I do not disagree with my colleague, by the way.

If my colleague will yield for just one additional point. I agree with respect to General Hayden as well. I noted because I watched the hearing--our colleague from Michigan is here and participated in the hearing--when General Hayden, in his confirmation hearing, was before the Armed Services Committee, there was a rather extensive discussion with General Hayden about the whole issue of intercepts. General Hayden was very forthcoming in that discussion about it. I have great respect for him as well. About the Web site here, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Web page for the National Security Agency, the page headed, ``Signals Intelligence.''

It is on public document and goes on at some length. I am not sure, my colleague may want to look at this. Maybe the agencies might be more careful about what it says here as well.

The point all along here is the simple question whether access to these records will be granted to the appropriate Members here in the Senate. I appreciate immensely what my colleague said here today. He's a remarkable Senator who does a terrific job, and I thank him for engaging with me a bit in this colloquy, but I was concerned when I saw that line as somehow being singled out about raising the question about whether or not Mr. Bolton made a request. That is all I asked that day. I knew it was an important matter, and it ought to be dealt with not in a public setting, that that ought to be done behind closed doors with the Intelligence Committee to go into further detail about what actually went on. That is why I tried to word it very cautiously and caution myself not to go over a line in asking the question.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 minutes to engage my colleague from Michigan in a little colloquy. Will my friend from Minnesota object to that?

Mr. President, I thank my friend.

I want to compliment my friend from Michigan on a very fine statement. He has focused, in my view, exactly on the central question here and that is not that there was disagreement over intelligence but, rather, whether someone went beyond a good, healthy fight over whether or not intelligence was accurate and took additional steps to dismiss or to change the jobs of the individuals involved.

I appreciate my colleague calling into question the access of information because this is central. That is why this Senator has taken the extraordinary step of asking my colleagues to potentially oppose a motion to invoke cloture on this nomination if the information is not forthcoming.

The reason I want to raise this is because our good friend from Kansas, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, read into the Record a letter he sent to Senator Lugar regarding this request for the intercept information. And the pertinent paragraph, to this Senator, I want to read quickly. It says:

Finally, the Vice Chairman and I reviewed all ten documents

containing the references to U.S. persons that generated

Under Secretary Bolton's requests. The documents we reviewed

did not contain the actual identities of the minimized U.S.

persons. After reviewing the content of each report, however,

it was apparent to us both that it was not necessary to know

the actual names to determine whether [or not] the requests

were proper.

Now, the letter goes on, but that is the important paragraph because the very identity of the individual names was redacted. The chairman of the Committee on Intelligence and the ranking member on Intelligence were not allowed to see the names, the very names that Mr. Bolton was able to see and apparently his staff was able to see. That is the relevant information that we are seeking--the names of the individuals.

Does my colleague have any comment on that particular point? Because that, to me, is the central admission in this letter.

I thank my friend for a good statement.

Will my colleague yield for a question?

I appreciate the Senator's comments. I ask unanimous consent that entire paragraph I quoted from the chairman be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I raise this point. I appreciate his point. Obviously, there is a disagreement between the ranking member and chairman, unfortunately, which is not a healthy thing to see coming out of the Intelligence Committee. The point I am trying to make here is, with all due respect to the chairman of the Intelligence Committee and the ranking member, it was, in fact, the very names involved which could be the very names we are talking about that have been redacted from the document that would be terribly revealing. If, for instance, there is the name--we have called him ``Mr. Smith'' to protect his identity at the CIA. If there is overwhelming evidence that Mr. Bolton tried to have ``Mr. Smith'' dismissed as an intelligence analyst, and if one of the names being sought by Mr. Bolton was Mr. Smith, it seems that ought to send red flags up to everybody. Why? It is Mr. Bolton requesting to know who Mr. Smith was and what he said, an individual he was trying to have dismissed from the CIA. We don't know whether Mr. Smith's name is on there because the name was redacted. The chairman and ranking member cannot read that name.

Without knowing the name of the individual, you cannot get to the point. Obviously, the people at the State Department--it is the same thing. Without knowing the names, without the identities, I don't know how you can draw the conclusion that it wasn't relevant. That is my point.

Mr. President. I am pleased to rise today, together with my colleague Senator Lieberman, to introduce The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2005.

The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2005 will put an end to legal doctrine that unfairly penalizes thousands of workers in Connecticut and in other States throughout the country whose only offense is that they sometimes work from home or from a local office of their employer.

Technology has changed the way business is conducted in America. With the use of cell phones, lap-top computers, email, the Internet, mobile networking, and many other telecommunication advancements of the 21st century, Americans have a greater flexibility in where they can work, without compromising productivity. Many citizens now choose to work from home or alternative offices when their physical presence is not necessary at their primary place of work.

Telecommuting provides enormous benefits for businesses, families, and communities. It helps businesses lower costs and raise worker productivity. It reduces congestion on our roads and rails, and in so doing it lowers pollution. It helps workers better manage the demands of work and family. And last but not least, it can mean lower income taxes for working men and women.

Yet, the many benefits to workers of telecommuting are today placed in jeopardy because of current law in New York and a few other States. Today, New York State requires that workers pay income tax on income even if it is not earned in the State through their ``convenience of the employer'' rule. While there are several States that have the ``convenience of the employer'' rule, no other State applies it with the same rigor as New York.

New York's ``convenience of the employer'' rule requires that by working for a New York employer, all income earned from that employer must be declared in New York so long as the worker ``could'' perform his or her duties in New York. A worker for a New York employer who works part-time from home in Connecticut or another State is still subject to taxation by New York on 100 percent of his or her income. At the same time, the work done by that worker in a State outside New York is subject to taxation by that State.

This unfairly subjects many workers who telecommute from their homes or from satellite offices outside of New York to a double tax on that part of the income earned from home. According to Connecticut's Attorney General, thousands of Connecticut residents alone are affected by this unfair double taxation.

However, it isn't only Connecticut residents that are affected.

Thomas Huckaby is a Tennessee-based computer programmer that telecommuted for a firm in Queens, NY. In 1994 and 1995, Mr. Huckaby spent 75 percent of his time working in Tennessee and the remaining 25 percent working in the Queens office and attempted to apportion his income accordingly. New York, however, sought to tax 100 percent of his income and was successful due to it's ``convenience of employer'' rule. On March 29, 2005 the New York Court of Appeals upheld New York's rule in a 4 to 3 decision. Currently, Mr. Huckaby is in the process of petitioning the Supreme Court.

A similar story involves Arthur Gray, a New Hampshire resident who worked for the New York Company Cowen & Co. as an investment counselor from 1976 through 1996, and paid New York State income taxes during that time. In 1997, Arthur Gray, per his employer's request, opened and managed an office from his home in New Hampshire. Several times during the year, Mr. Gray worked in New York, but most of his days were spent in New Hampshire. When paying his taxes during this time, he paid New York State income taxes for the days he was in New York, but not for the days he worked in New Hampshire. New York, however, sought to tax 100 percent of his income and was successful due to this ``convenience of the employer'' rule.

These are only two examples of the far-reaching consequences of this ``convenience of employer'' rule. There are thousands of individuals across the country who are adversely impacted by this rule. Most, however, but most lack the time, money, or energy to take their case to court.

This potential for double taxation is not only unfair, it also discourages workers from telecommuting when we should be doing the opposite.

Legislation is needed to protect these honest workers who deserve fair and equitable treatment under the law. The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2005 accomplishes this by specifically preventing a State from engaging in the current fiction of deeming a nonresident to be in the taxing State when the nonresident is actually working in another State. In doing so, it will eliminate the possibility that citizens will be double-taxed when telecommuting.

Establishing a ``physical presence'' test--as this legislation would do--is the most logical basis for determining tax status. If a worker is in a State, and taking advantage of that State's infrastructure, the worker should pay taxes in that State.

Some suggest that the double-taxation quandary can easily be fixed by having other States provide a tax credit to those telecommuters. However, why should Connecticut, or any other

State, be required to allow a credit on income actually earned in the State? If a worker is working in Connecticut, he or she is benefiting from a range of Services paid for and maintained by Connecticut including roads, water, police, fire protection, and communications services. It's only fair that Connecticut ask that worker to help support the services that he or she uses.

This is not just an issue which deals with a small group of citizens from one small State. Rather, this is an issue which affects workers throughout the country. It will only grow more pressing as people and businesses continue to seek to take advantage of new technologies that affect the way we live and work.

I hope our colleagues will favorably consider this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Cochran, Levin, Kennedy and Akaka to introduce The International and Foreign Language Studies Act of 2005.

In recent years, foreign language needs have significantly increased throughout the Federal Government due to the presence of a wider range of security threats, the emergence of new nation states, and the globalization of the U.S. economy. Likewise, American business increasingly needs internationally experienced employees to compete in the global economy and to manage a culturally diverse workforce.

Currently, the U.S. government requires 34,000 employees with foreign language skills across 70 Federal agencies. These agencies have stated over the last few years, that translator and interpreter shortfalls have adversely affected agency operations and hindered U.S. military, law enforcement, intelligence, and diplomatic efforts.

Despite our growing needs, the number of undergraduate foreign language degrees conferred is only one percent of all degrees. Only one third of undergraduates report that they are taking foreign language courses and only 11 percent report that they have studied abroad.

At a time when our security needs are more important than ever, at a time when our economy demands that we enter new markets, and at a time when the world requires us to engage in diplomacy in more thoughtful and considered ways, it is extremely important that we have at our disposal a multilingual, multicultural, internationally experienced workforce. The Dodd-Cochran International and Foreign Language Studies Act attempts to do this in a number of ways.

The Dodd-Cochran International and Foreign Language Studies Act will increase undergraduate study abroad as a means to enhance foreign language proficiency and deepen cultural knowledge. The bill will reinstate undergraduate eligibility for Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships. The bill will encourage the Department of Education to engage in the collection, analysis and dissemination of

data on international education and foreign language needs so that we know and understand exactly what our needs in this area are. Within the Institute for International and Public Policy, the bill provides scholarships and creates an ``expert track'' for doctoral students in critical areas, disciplines and languages. And, most importantly, the Dodd-Cochran bill will demonstrate our nation's commitment to increasing the foreign language proficiency and international expertise of our citizens by increasing the amount appropriated to international education, including international business education, to allow for more opportunities for more students.

The Higher Education Act authorizes the Federal Government's major activities as they relate to financial assistance for students attending colleges and universities. It provides aid to institutions of higher education, services to help students complete high school and enter and succeed in postsecondary education, and mechanisms to improve the training of our emerging workforce. This bill will help fulfill that mission.

Foreign language skills and international study are vital to secure the future economic welfare of the United States in an increasingly international economy. Foreign language skills and international study are also vital for the nation to meet 21st century security challenges properly and effectively, especially in light of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

I hope our colleagues who are not cosponsoring this bill will give it serious consideration. By working together, I believe that the Senate as a body can act to ensure that we strengthen our Nation's security and economy by capitalizing on the talents and dreams of those who wish to enter the international arena.

Mr. President. I am pleased to rise today, together with my colleague Senator Lieberman, to introduce The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2005.

The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2005 will put an end to legal doctrine that unfairly penalizes thousands of workers in Connecticut and in other States throughout the country whose only offense is that they sometimes work from home or from a local office of their employer.

Technology has changed the way business is conducted in America. With the use of cell phones, lap-top computers, email, the Internet, mobile networking, and many other telecommunication advancements of the 21st century, Americans have a greater flexibility in where they can work, without compromising productivity. Many citizens now choose to work from home or alternative offices when their physical presence is not necessary at their primary place of work.

Telecommuting provides enormous benefits for businesses, families, and communities. It helps businesses lower costs and raise worker productivity. It reduces congestion on our roads and rails, and in so doing it lowers pollution. It helps workers better manage the demands of work and family. And last but not least, it can mean lower income taxes for working men and women.

Yet, the many benefits to workers of telecommuting are today placed in jeopardy because of current law in New York and a few other States. Today, New York State requires that workers pay income tax on income even if it is not earned in the State through their ``convenience of the employer'' rule. While there are several States that have the ``convenience of the employer'' rule, no other State applies it with the same rigor as New York.

New York's ``convenience of the employer'' rule requires that by working for a New York employer, all income earned from that employer must be declared in New York so long as the worker ``could'' perform his or her duties in New York. A worker for a New York employer who works part-time from home in Connecticut or another State is still subject to taxation by New York on 100 percent of his or her income. At the same time, the work done by that worker in a State outside New York is subject to taxation by that State.

This unfairly subjects many workers who telecommute from their homes or from satellite offices outside of New York to a double tax on that part of the income earned from home. According to Connecticut's Attorney General, thousands of Connecticut residents alone are affected by this unfair double taxation.

However, it isn't only Connecticut residents that are affected.

Thomas Huckaby is a Tennessee-based computer programmer that telecommuted for a firm in Queens, NY. In 1994 and 1995, Mr. Huckaby spent 75 percent of his time working in Tennessee and the remaining 25 percent working in the Queens office and attempted to apportion his income accordingly. New York, however, sought to tax 100 percent of his income and was successful due to it's ``convenience of employer'' rule. On March 29, 2005 the New York Court of Appeals upheld New York's rule in a 4 to 3 decision. Currently, Mr. Huckaby is in the process of petitioning the Supreme Court.

A similar story involves Arthur Gray, a New Hampshire resident who worked for the New York Company Cowen & Co. as an investment counselor from 1976 through 1996, and paid New York State income taxes during that time. In 1997, Arthur Gray, per his employer's request, opened and managed an office from his home in New Hampshire. Several times during the year, Mr. Gray worked in New York, but most of his days were spent in New Hampshire. When paying his taxes during this time, he paid New York State income taxes for the days he was in New York, but not for the days he worked in New Hampshire. New York, however, sought to tax 100 percent of his income and was successful due to this ``convenience of the employer'' rule.

These are only two examples of the far-reaching consequences of this ``convenience of employer'' rule. There are thousands of individuals across the country who are adversely impacted by this rule. Most, however, but most lack the time, money, or energy to take their case to court.

This potential for double taxation is not only unfair, it also discourages workers from telecommuting when we should be doing the opposite.

Legislation is needed to protect these honest workers who deserve fair and equitable treatment under the law. The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2005 accomplishes this by specifically preventing a State from engaging in the current fiction of deeming a nonresident to be in the taxing State when the nonresident is actually working in another State. In doing so, it will eliminate the possibility that citizens will be double-taxed when telecommuting.

Establishing a ``physical presence'' test--as this legislation would do--is the most logical basis for determining tax status. If a worker is in a State, and taking advantage of that State's infrastructure, the worker should pay taxes in that State.

Some suggest that the double-taxation quandary can easily be fixed by having other States provide a tax credit to those telecommuters. However, why should Connecticut, or any other

State, be required to allow a credit on income actually earned in the State? If a worker is working in Connecticut, he or she is benefiting from a range of Services paid for and maintained by Connecticut including roads, water, police, fire protection, and communications services. It's only fair that Connecticut ask that worker to help support the services that he or she uses.

This is not just an issue which deals with a small group of citizens from one small State. Rather, this is an issue which affects workers throughout the country. It will only grow more pressing as people and businesses continue to seek to take advantage of new technologies that affect the way we live and work.

I hope our colleagues will favorably consider this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Cochran, Levin, Kennedy and Akaka to introduce The International and Foreign Language Studies Act of 2005.

In recent years, foreign language needs have significantly increased throughout the Federal Government due to the presence of a wider range of security threats, the emergence of new nation states, and the globalization of the U.S. economy. Likewise, American business increasingly needs internationally experienced employees to compete in the global economy and to manage a culturally diverse workforce.

Currently, the U.S. government requires 34,000 employees with foreign language skills across 70 Federal agencies. These agencies have stated over the last few years, that translator and interpreter shortfalls have adversely affected agency operations and hindered U.S. military, law enforcement, intelligence, and diplomatic efforts.

Despite our growing needs, the number of undergraduate foreign language degrees conferred is only one percent of all degrees. Only one third of undergraduates report that they are taking foreign language courses and only 11 percent report that they have studied abroad.

At a time when our security needs are more important than ever, at a time when our economy demands that we enter new markets, and at a time when the world requires us to engage in diplomacy in more thoughtful and considered ways, it is extremely important that we have at our disposal a multilingual, multicultural, internationally experienced workforce. The Dodd-Cochran International and Foreign Language Studies Act attempts to do this in a number of ways.

The Dodd-Cochran International and Foreign Language Studies Act will increase undergraduate study abroad as a means to enhance foreign language proficiency and deepen cultural knowledge. The bill will reinstate undergraduate eligibility for Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships. The bill will encourage the Department of Education to engage in the collection, analysis and dissemination of

data on international education and foreign language needs so that we know and understand exactly what our needs in this area are. Within the Institute for International and Public Policy, the bill provides scholarships and creates an ``expert track'' for doctoral students in critical areas, disciplines and languages. And, most importantly, the Dodd-Cochran bill will demonstrate our nation's commitment to increasing the foreign language proficiency and international expertise of our citizens by increasing the amount appropriated to international education, including international business education, to allow for more opportunities for more students.

The Higher Education Act authorizes the Federal Government's major activities as they relate to financial assistance for students attending colleges and universities. It provides aid to institutions of higher education, services to help students complete high school and enter and succeed in postsecondary education, and mechanisms to improve the training of our emerging workforce. This bill will help fulfill that mission.

Foreign language skills and international study are vital to secure the future economic welfare of the United States in an increasingly international economy. Foreign language skills and international study are also vital for the nation to meet 21st century security challenges properly and effectively, especially in light of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

I hope our colleagues who are not cosponsoring this bill will give it serious consideration. By working together, I believe that the Senate as a body can act to ensure that we strengthen our Nation's security and economy by capitalizing on the talents and dreams of those who wish to enter the international arena.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children and Family HIV/AIDS Research and Care Act of 2005. This bipartisan legislation is similar to a bill that was introduced last year. This legislation will address the special needs of children and youth with HIV/AIDS--needs that are too often overlooked, both domestically and internationally. It recognizes the, simple fact that when it comes to HIV prevention, research, care, and treatment, children and youth are not just small adults. To give them a chance for a healthy future, we must ensure that their unique needs are met. I want to thank my good friend Senator Bond of Missouri for joining me in introducing this important legislation. I am very pleased to work with him to move this bill forward.

Children's growing bodies are especially susceptible to the rapid advancement of HIV infection. Because their immune systems are still immature, the disease typically progresses more rapidly and differently in children than in adults. For example, children with HIV infection are more prone to neurological abnormalities and certain opportunistic infections than adults. In addition, because children's bodies are growing and developing, HIV/AIDS can have profound effects on children's physical growth and ability to reach developmental milestones such as crawling, walking and learning to talk.

While research has definitively shown that initiating drug treatment in children in a timely manner promotes normal growth and development, and prolongs life, treating children with HIV/AIDS presents particular challenges. Appropriately formulated and dosed HIV/AIDS drugs are urgently needed to ensure that children receive optimal care. Currently, liquid formulations that young children can swallow are not always readily available. In addition, pediatric dosing and safety information for these powerful drugs is often lacking, particularly for younger children. This lack of information puts children at risk; too much medication can be toxic and too little will not effectively suppress the virus. Over time, under-dosing can lead to drug resistance, a particularly serious concern for children who will need to use these medications for years, if not decades.

Appropriate HIV/AIDS care and treatment for children and youth also requires that special attention be paid to their social development needs. Children and youth have unique concerns regarding disclosure and stigma that may be exacerbated by frequent absences from school and social activities, and the onset of sexual maturity. Working with schools and other social and community institutions is imperative to promoting a sense of normalcy. Because children are not typically medical decision-makers, developing long-term care partnerships with parents and other caregivers is also crucial to successful care and treatment. At the same time, maximizing each child's own ability to take active participation in different aspects of his or her own care can increase a child's sense of ownership over treatment, improving adherence and overall health.

By reauthorizing and expanding Title IV of the Ryan White CARE Act this legislation will help to ensure that the unique care and treatment needs of children are addressed. This program is a lifeline for more than 53,000 women, children, and youth affected by HIV/AIDS served annually by Title IV-funded projects. Through 91 grants in 35 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, Title IV projects provide medical care, case management, support services, mental health, transportation, child care, and other crucial services to families affected by HIV/AIDS. Title IV is the smallest of the four main titles of the Ryan White CARE Act, yet reaches the highest proportion of minorities.

Key to the success of Title IV projects is the model of ``family- centered care.'' This model of care treats the whole family as the client, whether several family members are infected by HIV, or just a parent or child. The family-centered care model is crucial to developing strong partnerships between consumers and providers, leading to better health outcomes for women, children, and youth. By allowing affected family members to receive services, as well as the infected individuals, Title IV projects promote health at the family level, thereby prolonging life, improving quality of life, and saving money by keeping people out of the hospital.

I would like to take a moment to recognize the work done by the Children, Youth and Family AIDS Network of Connecticut, which provides Title IV services to more than 500 children, youth, women, and families affected by HIV/AIDS in my home state. Just earlier today, I had an opportunity to meet with some of these individuals. They made it clear just how important these services are to their quality of life.

While recommitting the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to family-centered care and the unique work of Title IV, this legislation will also expand the innovative strategies Title IV projects have used to prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission. Since 1994, when the administration of preventive drug interventions was shown to significantly reduce perinatal HIV transmission, the number of newborns infected with HIV has decreased dramatically. Yet mother-to- children transmission does continue to occur, largely due to missed opportunities for identifying HIV-positive pregnant women and providing the supportive services needed to ensure adherence to recommended treatment regimens. We propose to fund demonstration grants to assess the effectiveness of two strategies in reducing mother-to-children transmission: (1) increasing routine, voluntary HIV testing of pregnant women and (2) increasing access to prenatal care, intensive case management, and supportive services for HIV-positive pregnant women.

In addition, this bill will encourage research into key care and treatment questions affecting the pediatric populations. These include: the long-term health effects of preventive drug regimens on HIV-exposed children; the

long-term health, psycho-social, and prevention needs for children and adolescents perinatally HIV-infected; the transition to adulthood for HIV-infected children; and safer and more effective treatment options for infants, children, and adolescents with HIV disease.

Since history suggests that a vaccine may prove to be the most effective, affordable, long-term approach to stopping the spread of HIV, this legislation will also ensure that children are not an afterthought when it comes to the development of an HIV vaccine. Currently, some of the populations hardest hit by the pandemic--infants and youth--are at risk of being left behind in the search for an effective vaccine. Because we cannot assume that a vaccine tested in adults will also be safe and effective when used in pediatric populations, it will be important to ensure that promising vaccines are tested in infants and youth as early as is medically and ethically appropriate. Failure to begin planning for the inclusion of these groups in clinical trials could mean significant delays in the availability of a pediatric HIV vaccine, at the cost of countless thousands of lives. This legislation will ensure that we begin now to address the logistical, regulatory, medical, and ethical issues presented by pediatric testing of HIV vaccines so that children can share in the benefits of any advances in vaccines research.

I want to thank several organizations for lending their expertise to the development of this legislation, in particular the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, the AIDS Alliance for Children, Youth and Families, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, all of whom endorse this bill.

HIV/AIDS is the single greatest health care catastrophe facing the world today. We need to do much more to seek effective treatments and, eventually, a cure for this horrible illness. This legislation is by no means sufficient to reach that goal, but it is a step towards ensuring that children are not left behind as we make progress, and then when we do finally eradicate HIV/AIDS once and for all, children and youth are able to benefit immediately. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children and Family HIV/AIDS Research and Care Act of 2005. This bipartisan legislation is similar to a bill that was introduced last year. This legislation will address the special needs of children and youth with HIV/AIDS--needs that are too often overlooked, both domestically and internationally. It recognizes the, simple fact that when it comes to HIV prevention, research, care, and treatment, children and youth are not just small adults. To give them a chance for a healthy future, we must ensure that their unique needs are met. I want to thank my good friend Senator Bond of Missouri for joining me in introducing this important legislation. I am very pleased to work with him to move this bill forward.

Children's growing bodies are especially susceptible to the rapid advancement of HIV infection. Because their immune systems are still immature, the disease typically progresses more rapidly and differently in children than in adults. For example, children with HIV infection are more prone to neurological abnormalities and certain opportunistic infections than adults. In addition, because children's bodies are growing and developing, HIV/AIDS can have profound effects on children's physical growth and ability to reach developmental milestones such as crawling, walking and learning to talk.

While research has definitively shown that initiating drug treatment in children in a timely manner promotes normal growth and development, and prolongs life, treating children with HIV/AIDS presents particular challenges. Appropriately formulated and dosed HIV/AIDS drugs are urgently needed to ensure that children receive optimal care. Currently, liquid formulations that young children can swallow are not always readily available. In addition, pediatric dosing and safety information for these powerful drugs is often lacking, particularly for younger children. This lack of information puts children at risk; too much medication can be toxic and too little will not effectively suppress the virus. Over time, under-dosing can lead to drug resistance, a particularly serious concern for children who will need to use these medications for years, if not decades.

Appropriate HIV/AIDS care and treatment for children and youth also requires that special attention be paid to their social development needs. Children and youth have unique concerns regarding disclosure and stigma that may be exacerbated by frequent absences from school and social activities, and the onset of sexual maturity. Working with schools and other social and community institutions is imperative to promoting a sense of normalcy. Because children are not typically medical decision-makers, developing long-term care partnerships with parents and other caregivers is also crucial to successful care and treatment. At the same time, maximizing each child's own ability to take active participation in different aspects of his or her own care can increase a child's sense of ownership over treatment, improving adherence and overall health.

By reauthorizing and expanding Title IV of the Ryan White CARE Act this legislation will help to ensure that the unique care and treatment needs of children are addressed. This program is a lifeline for more than 53,000 women, children, and youth affected by HIV/AIDS served annually by Title IV-funded projects. Through 91 grants in 35 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, Title IV projects provide medical care, case management, support services, mental health, transportation, child care, and other crucial services to families affected by HIV/AIDS. Title IV is the smallest of the four main titles of the Ryan White CARE Act, yet reaches the highest proportion of minorities.

Key to the success of Title IV projects is the model of ``family- centered care.'' This model of care treats the whole family as the client, whether several family members are infected by HIV, or just a parent or child. The family-centered care model is crucial to developing strong partnerships between consumers and providers, leading to better health outcomes for women, children, and youth. By allowing affected family members to receive services, as well as the infected individuals, Title IV projects promote health at the family level, thereby prolonging life, improving quality of life, and saving money by keeping people out of the hospital.

I would like to take a moment to recognize the work done by the Children, Youth and Family AIDS Network of Connecticut, which provides Title IV services to more than 500 children, youth, women, and families affected by HIV/AIDS in my home state. Just earlier today, I had an opportunity to meet with some of these individuals. They made it clear just how important these services are to their quality of life.

While recommitting the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to family-centered care and the unique work of Title IV, this legislation will also expand the innovative strategies Title IV projects have used to prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission. Since 1994, when the administration of preventive drug interventions was shown to significantly reduce perinatal HIV transmission, the number of newborns infected with HIV has decreased dramatically. Yet mother-to- children transmission does continue to occur, largely due to missed opportunities for identifying HIV-positive pregnant women and providing the supportive services needed to ensure adherence to recommended treatment regimens. We propose to fund demonstration grants to assess the effectiveness of two strategies in reducing mother-to-children transmission: (1) increasing routine, voluntary HIV testing of pregnant women and (2) increasing access to prenatal care, intensive case management, and supportive services for HIV-positive pregnant women.

In addition, this bill will encourage research into key care and treatment questions affecting the pediatric populations. These include: the long-term health effects of preventive drug regimens on HIV-exposed children; the

long-term health, psycho-social, and prevention needs for children and adolescents perinatally HIV-infected; the transition to adulthood for HIV-infected children; and safer and more effective treatment options for infants, children, and adolescents with HIV disease.

Since history suggests that a vaccine may prove to be the most effective, affordable, long-term approach to stopping the spread of HIV, this legislation will also ensure that children are not an afterthought when it comes to the development of an HIV vaccine. Currently, some of the populations hardest hit by the pandemic--infants and youth--are at risk of being left behind in the search for an effective vaccine. Because we cannot assume that a vaccine tested in adults will also be safe and effective when used in pediatric populations, it will be important to ensure that promising vaccines are tested in infants and youth as early as is medically and ethically appropriate. Failure to begin planning for the inclusion of these groups in clinical trials could mean significant delays in the availability of a pediatric HIV vaccine, at the cost of countless thousands of lives. This legislation will ensure that we begin now to address the logistical, regulatory, medical, and ethical issues presented by pediatric testing of HIV vaccines so that children can share in the benefits of any advances in vaccines research.

I want to thank several organizations for lending their expertise to the development of this legislation, in particular the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, the AIDS Alliance for Children, Youth and Families, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, all of whom endorse this bill.

HIV/AIDS is the single greatest health care catastrophe facing the world today. We need to do much more to seek effective treatments and, eventually, a cure for this horrible illness. This legislation is by no means sufficient to reach that goal, but it is a step towards ensuring that children are not left behind as we make progress, and then when we do finally eradicate HIV/AIDS once and for all, children and youth are able to benefit immediately. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the members of the 110th A.A.A. Gun Battalion. This weekend, the 110th will be holding a reunion in Cromwell, CT, to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Allied victory in the Second World War.

The 110th played a critical role in the campaign in Europe. They were trained in England in preparation for the Allied invasion in 1944. On June 7 a day after D-Day they reached Omaha Beach in France with orders to ``protect all ground forces from enemy aircraft.'' Members of the 110th also participated in the liberation of Paris, the crossing of the Rhine, and the Battle of the Bulge.

The bravery and accomplishments of the 110th earned the unit considerable praise. Brigadier General E.W. Timberlake commended the men of the 110th for their ``outstanding drive, tenacity of purpose, and aggressiveness,'' while Colonel Thomas Munford lauded the battalion for its ``outstanding performance of every assigned mission, both in training and in battle.''

A few of the achievements of the 110th deserve particular recognition. They successfully shot down what is believed to be the first German plane downed in France during the liberation of Europe. Members of their reconnaissance team were among the first Americans to enter Paris. In total, the 110th destroyed 65 enemy planes, 11 tanks, and 80 ground vehicles.

It gives me a good deal of pride to note that many of the members of the 110th hailed from Massachusetts and Connecticut. As the birthplace of our Nation, New England boasts a long and honored tradition of deep patriotism and dedicated service to our country. New Englanders have served in every single one of our Nation's conflicts, from the Revolutionary War to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

During the Second World War, the fate of not only our own Nation but the world was at stake. And New Englanders joined our entire Nation in stepping forward to defend freedom against the forces of tyranny and oppression.

Sadly, with each passing year, fewer and fewer of our World War II veterans remain with us. We can all remember the deeply emotional moment last year when thousands of World War II vets gathered here in our Nation's capital for the opening of the National World War II Memorial. Just as notable, though, are the smaller gatherings that take place around our Nation that provide veterans with the opportunity to renew old ties, to meet each other's families, and to reminisce about the unforgettable experiences they shared many years ago.

On that note, I would like to offer congratulations to Leo Kania of Middletown, CT, who served as a corporal in the 110th. This week's reunion is the 6th such event Mr. Kania has organized over the years. This weekend, members of the 110th will have the opportunity to tour the very boat that took them to Omaha Beach six decades ago. The dedication Mr. Kania has shown is a testament to his devotion to his battalion, his pride in his country, and his spirit of friendship.

I offer my congratulations and my humble thanks to the members of the 110th A.A.A. Gun Battalion, and I extend my best wishes to them and their families on this momentous anniversary.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.