Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Student Bill of Rights. This bill would ensure that every child in America has an equal opportunity to receive a high quality education.

The Student Bill of Rights would achieve this goal by providing America's children with components needed for a solid education. These components include highly qualified teachers, challenging curricula, small classes, current textbooks, quality libraries, and up-to-date technology.

Currently, federal law requires that schools within the same district provide comparable educational services. The Student Bill of Rights would extend that basic guarantee of equal opportunity to the state level by requiring comparability of resources across school districts within a state.

More than 50 years ago, Brown v. Board of Education struck down segregation in law. Over 50 years later, we know that just because there is no segregation in law does not mean that it does not persist. Today, our education system remains largely separate and unequal, and in light of a recent Supreme Court decision, we need to find more creative ways to promote equity in our schools.

All too often, where a child's family can afford to live determines whether that child is taught by a high quality teacher, has access to the best courses and instructional materials, goes to school in a new, modern building, and otherwise benefits from educational resources that have been shown to be essential to a quality education. In fact, the U.S. ranks at the bottom among developed countries in the disparity in the quality of schools available to wealthy and low-income children. This gap is simply unacceptable, and it is why the Student Bill of Rights is so important to our children's ability to gain the skills they need to be responsible, participating citizens in our diverse democracy, and to compete and succeed in the global economy.

While other factors such as supportive parents, motivated peers, and positive role models in the community are also beneficial to academic achievement, we know that adequate resources are crucial to providing students with the opportunity to receive a solid education.

The quality of a child's education should not be determined by his or her ZIP code. The Student Bill of Rights will help ensure that each and every child gets a decent education, and in turn, an equal opportunity for a successful future. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting the Student Bill of Rights.

Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Wisconsin. I, once again, express my gratitude to

him for raising this issue, as he has on numerous occasions in the past. It is no surprise whatsoever that he would do so again on this very critical piece of legislation.

Let me say that my friend from Mississippi, for whom I have the highest regard and respect, has a job to do to get this bill out. We understand that as well. But I would underscore the points made by the Senator from Wisconsin. There is no other more important issue, I would posit, than the one which is the subject of this amendment: that is, the continued military involvement in Iraq and the important question of our increased safety and security, and the possibility of Iraq reaching some reconciliation with its political and religious leaders. Is there still a rationale for our continued presence there, as posited by those in favor of this policy?

I would argue that there is not. This subject matter is about as critical as it gets for this body to debate. In fact, one may make the case that debating two hours on an amendment such as this is hardly adequate time when you consider what is at stake, not just in terms of contemporary issues, but the long-term security interests of our country. Those interests are going to be affected and, I would argue, adversely affected by a policy that raises serious questions.

Last month, I came to the floor of this body to speak in favor of a similar amendment offered by the Senator of Wisconsin, along with Senator Reid. It was, I am convinced, a sensible plan for ending our disastrous policy in Iraq. The reasons for doing so are so crystal clear to the public; they hardly need rehearsing here, but for the sake of those who may not have followed it, let me summarize those arguments briefly. I would ask my colleagues to forgive me for being redundant, but I find the following exchange that occurred just a few days ago so astounding and so telling of the folly of this conflict that it bears repeating.

It comes from two full days of testimony before Congress by General Petraeus. Let me say that I have tremendous admiration for General Petraeus. I don't know him personally, but I admire his service to our country. It has been a distinguished service. Others have had difficulty with it. I don't. He is not the architect of policy; as a senior military official, he is asked to execute policy. So if people are upset about policy, their opposition should be toward those who create the policy, not those we ask to carry it out.

There was an exchange between Senator Warner of Virginia and General Petraeus before the Senate Armed Services Committee that I thought was incredible in its simplicity and directness, and I admire General Petraeus for his candor and honesty in answering the question Senator Warner posed to him. It was maybe the most direct and serious question raised in all those hearings, and it goes to the heart of all this debate.

The question to the General from Senator Warner was the following:

Do you feel that the war in Iraq is making America safer?

A very simple question--not any more complicated than that. General Petraeus said:

I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to

achieve our objectives in Iraq.

Senator Warner followed up with:

Does it make America safer?

General Petraeus's answer was:

I don't know, actually.

I don't know. I don't know, actually. To the families of the 3,808 men and women who have lost their lives, this is cold comfort indeed, that the commanding general has not even convinced himself that this war serves our security.

That is the fundamental issue, Mr. President. The basic question we must ask ourselves in matters such as these, first and foremost: Does this policy make us safer, more secure, less vulnerable, less isolated in the world? If you don't know the answer to that--and I suspect even the general may have some serious doubts about it or he wouldn't have been as candidly vague in his answer here--we must reexamine whether it is in our interest to pursue that policy. Frankly, I think there are overwhelming numbers of us here who have, at the very least, serious doubts about this tactic--and that is what it is; it is not a strategy but a tactic--to achieve our greater security and safety. If your answer to that question is no, as it is for me and I think for many others, the evidence is overwhelming here that we are turning Iraq into a Petri dish for jihadists and terrorists.

We have every other nation packing its bags and leaving. So this coalition of the willing is evaporating. Every other issue we are grappling with internationally is seen through the prism of Iraq. Whether it is Darfur, Latin America, Asia, or whatever else the issue is, it is all seen through that prism. So not only does it affect the outcome in Iraq, it is affecting every other consideration in which this Nation is involved. For anyone who believes we are safer, more secure, less vulnerable, less isolated as a result of pursuing this policy, I have serious reservations, as I believe General Petraeus did in his answer to our colleague. The consensus is strong and growing, I believe, that our current course has failed to make Iraq safe and make America safer--that it is, in fact, making this country less safe and so must change dramatically.

The Constitution does not give us the power to sit here and decide on a day-to-day, hourly basis how to manage the affairs of the Pentagon, and rightfully so. Five hundred and thirty-five Members of Congress with disparate political views cannot sit here and dictate on a day-to- day basis how this ought to be managed. We are given one power, one overwhelming power: the power of the purse. That is what makes this body unique. So I think that any other exhausting legislative language dictating how this conflict ought to be managed, with all due respect to its authors, is not well placed. We have one responsibility: to decide, yes or no, this is a matter which deserves the continued appropriation of America's money, its tax money, to finance it. That is the question. You either believe it is or it isn't.

So the amendment being offered by Senator Feingold goes to the very heart of the power this body has when it comes to the matter of Iraq and whether we fund it. If you believe we should go forward, that we are safer, more secure, then you have an obligation to fund it. If you believe it is not doing that, then you have a commensurate obligation, and that is to say enough is enough and to stop. That is our judgment, our job, to make that decision. I am not suggesting that it is not a pleasant one.

General Petraeus can be relatively agnostic on the issue. He is a general; it is his job to be agnostic, except in the confines of private conversation. But we don't have that luxury to be agnostic on these questions. We were elected to do a job, to represent our constituencies and, in a broader sense, the people at large, and we have to decide whether the continued investment of their tax dollars is worthy of this cause. I don't believe it is.

I believe the time has come--and long ago--for us to come up with a different policy that would offer Iraq more hope and our own interests in the region a far greater prospect for stability, a policy that would reestablish our presence and our moral authority in the world when it comes to the myriad other issues we must grapple with as a people.

What more could possibly happen to quell the violence between and among Iraq's Sunnis and Shiites to end this civil war?

Conversely, how much more do we sacrifice in the absence of a reconciliation which has not happened?

We all know the honest answers to those questions. And knowing them, it seems evident the administration's last-ditch supporters here are selling us little more than a policy of blind faith. Do the President's supporters think this can go on forever, or are they simply planning for it to go on until the end of the President's term and then hand it off to someone else? Will they come to this floor and claim we are invulnerable?

If General Petraeus does not know, actually--his honest answer to Senator Warner's question--whether this war is making us safer, let's ask another question: Is this war endangering our security?

So the choice we face--and I believe it is a choice--is a clear one. It doesn't make it a painless one. In fact, I haven't been part of a more painful debate in all my years in this body, considering the length it has gone on. But to govern is to make such choices,

even--especially--when they are painful. Our choice not between victory and defeat, which has never been the issue from the very outset, even though the strongest advocates of this policy have always argued that. The issue was never the victory or defeat of our military in Iraq. It was always to create the space and opportunity for reconciliation, a positive political conclusion in Iraq.

The choice is either trying to end Iraq's civil war through the use of military force, or demanding that Iraq's political leaders take responsibility through solving their civil conflict through the only means possible--through reconciliation and compromise.

Yet we are now going into nearly the fifth year, and even with the pleadings of an American President, the Vice President, senior military people, and Lord knows how many Members of Congress, of both political parties--even as recently as a few weeks ago--the political leadership of that country has not taken advantage. It has not found compromise.

If you argue that the surge has created space, it certainly hasn't created a reconciliation. It doesn't seem anyone is able to persuade the political leadership of that country to do what all of us understand they must do, and that is to decide whether they want to be a country and work with each other, despite their differences. No one yet has succeeded in that effort. And I don't believe it is likely to happen if we continue the policy we are following.

So I believe the American people are far ahead of us on this issue. They have made their choice. It now seems to be our job, our solemn responsibility, to turn those choices into facts.

This is precisely what the Feingold amendment does, by cutting off funds from all combat operations in Iraq after June 30 of next year, with four exceptions: counterterrorism operations, protecting government personnel and infrastructure, training the Iraqi security forces, and force protection.

If all of the reasons for supporting this amendment aren't compelling enough, I might add another as well. Almost 5 years into the occupation of Iraq, the administration continues to ask us to fund the war through supplemental funding bills. It is simply astonishing to me to think that President Bush, hasn't figured out by now what this war costs on a regular basis. He ought to fund it through the regular, long-standing budget process and not hide its true cost from the American people by continuing to ask for supplemental funding, sinking this Nation further and further into a several-trillion-dollar debt.

Mr. President, let's be under no illusions as to what all Defense authorization and appropriations bills are supporting. They are supporting the continuation of our troop presence in Iraq. We cannot artificially separate a Defense funding bill from an Iraq supplemental bill. This is an Iraq bill, have no doubts about it.

This legislation is what will make our continued military occupation of Iraq go forward for many months to come--and this amendment is our chance to stop it. I would argue it is probably the last one until maybe sometime next year, when another supplemental bill comes up, and then we will be talking about 2009 and beyond. So we are already committing ourselves into the next decade of this century.

Moments arrive, Mr. President, and this is such a moment. Moments come and then they pass, and speeches are given later about what we wished we had done, or what we wish we had known--statements that will have no value whatsoever. We tolerate a mistake once, not twice, when it comes to this policy. This is the moment, this is the hour, this is the 2 hours we have to debate: 120 minutes is what we get to debate a policy that is costing us billions of dollars and thousands of lives and disrupting, I believe, very profoundly and seriously, the leadership of our country in world affairs.

So I urge my colleagues in the remaining moments of this debate to give Senator Feingold a chance here and that we support this particular effort. Let us rise to this opportunity while we have it. Let us ensure now, while we have the chance, that all of our combat troops are out of Iraq by next summer.

Our men and women in uniform have served there with bravery, devotion, sacrifice, and incredible distinction, but there is nothing they can do now to bring about the political reconciliation Iraq so desperately needs. The choice belongs to the people of Iraq and their political and religious leaders. And no further shedding of American blood can make that choice come faster or come out right. I urge my colleagues to support the Feingold amendment and bring an end to this disastrous engagement in a desperate land.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to discuss the need to continue development of a vital next-generation battlefield surveillance and management radar system. Battlefield surveillance and management is more important than ever for the safety and effectiveness of our military, engaged in a variety of combat operations. With the advent of increasingly difficult-to-track targets, new technology is critically important to keep pace with expanding threats to our men and women in uniform. Indeed, U.S. technology should be honed to detect threats such as cruise missiles, rockets, as well as slow moving land based targets common on the battlefield in counterterrorism operations.

As the distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee knows, production of the Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar aircraft, or JSTARS--our Nation's principal platform for performing these vital missions--was canceled in 2003, with its last delivery occurring in 2005. The E-10 multisensor command and control aircraft was intended to replace this platform, but that too was canceled last year. Fortunately, after constructive discussions with the Department of Defense, the Pentagon agreed to continue developing the high-tech sensor and radar technologies that were being designed to outfit the E-10, the multiplatform radar technology insertion program, or MP-RTIP. Unfortunately, the Department of Defense would only commit to developing the system via supplemental appropriations instead of the standard Defense budgeting process. I remain concerned that such an uncertain funding strategy could jeopardize our Nation's ability to develop the critical tools our military needs to maintain modern intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities.

I would like to add to my distinguished colleague from Connecticut's remarks. While our troops deserve nothing less than the best equipment, it is also essential that we maintain the ability to domestically produce this type of advanced technology. I am convinced that failure to support MP-RTIPs continued advancement would result in a devastating loss to our domestic industrial base, essential for producing this type of crucial radar technology. Additionally, it would seem as though we had wasted the $1 billion already invested in this vital program. Now is not the time to forgo dominance in the realm of battlefield surveillance and management--and that is precisely what would happen if we ended domestic production of this vital system.

I thank the chairman for his leadership on this important issue.

Patriot Missiles

Madam President, I wish to explain my vote against ending debate on the Defense authorization bill. I voted this way for two simple reasons--first, this bill does not do anything to end the war, and second, it does not provide adequate support for the families of our returning wounded warriors.

A few weeks ago, I filed an amendment based on a key recommendation of the Dole-Shalala Wounded Warriors Commission--to expand the Family and Medical Leave Act to allow the families of wounded military personnel to take up to 6 months of unpaid leave to care for their loved ones. Now, because the Senate voted to shut off debate, this critically important amendment will not be considered. Such an expansion of the FMLA is of the utmost importance to our wounded warriors, and I will ask at the end of my statement to have a letter from Senator Bob Dole to Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain, detailing the tremendous importance of this provision, be printed in the Record.

On September 11, 2007, I announced that I would not support legislation dealing with Iraq unless it included a firm and enforceable deadline for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq--one linked to an explicit cut off of funds after a date certain. Sadly, Republican stalling tactics made it impossible for such a provision to receive an up-or-down vote under regular Senate procedures. Therefore, I could not, in good conscience, call for an end to debate on a bill that has not addressed that issue or the hardships our soldiers and their families face both at home and abroad, and the very security of our Nation.

That said, I commend Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain for their hard work in making sure this legislation does include many beneficial and important provisions, such as a 3.5-percent pay raise for our men and women in uniform and additional funding to purchase Mine Resistant Armor Protected vehicles. These are important steps in making sure our Armed Forces are appropriately compensated and equipped to defend our Nation. But as long as another year passes without an effective plan to end the war and support our military families, I am afraid that this Congress's work will be incomplete.

Madam President, I ask to have the letter to which I referred printed in the Record.

The letter follows.

Hon. Carl Levin,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John McCain,

Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain, I would like

to thank you, once again, for your continued efforts to

improve the treatment of our returning combat troops,

exemplified by your shepherding of the Wounded Warrior

Assistance Act of 2007 through the Senate in July. This

important measure provided a good first step; but as you

know, much more remains to be done and I appreciate your

willingness to consider the recommendations made by the

President's Commission on Care for America's Returning

Wounded Warriors.

As you know, I, along with former Secretary of Health and

Human Services Donna Shalala, recently released the findings

of the Commission. One specific finding of this report is

currently pending as an amendment to the National Defense

Authorization Act currently being debated on the Senate

floor. Notably, the Dodd-Clinton-Dole-Graham amendment (S.

Amdt #2647) increases Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) job

protection benefits to the families of our injured soldiers

from the current 12 weeks to 6 months. These families are

facing significant challenges to help their loved ones heal,

and the last thing they need to worry about is losing their

jobs in the process.

There are two very critical points to be made with respect

to this recommendation by the Commission. First, the use of

already existing FMLA authority is vital to minimizing the

delay in implementation of this needed benefit. The FMLA has

existed for 14 years and has a proven track record of

success. It is understood by those using the benefits, those

charged with its oversight, and the employers working within

its framework. Second, the length of the benefit has been

carefully crafted to best balance the impact on employers on

one side and the average time it takes for most injured

personnel to regain self-sufficiency. While other pending

amendments have either sought to depart from the existing

FMLA structure by using other legislative vehicles not

intended to extend to families of service members such as the

Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act

(USERRA), or extended job protection benefits beyond six

months, neither are supported by the Commission's findings

and may actually hinder the efforts to implement the

Commission's work.

The Administration will have a different approach, but it

will be some time before the Administration's comprehensive

proposal will be acted on.

Thank you for your consideration of this important

legislation. I know that you share my belief that it is

essential that we supply all necessary and prudent tools to

our military families to deal with the hardships of helping

their wounded warriors regain self-sufficiency following a

severe injury. The Dodd-Clinton-Dole-Graham amendment passes

this test. If I may be of any further assistance, please feel

free to contact me.

God Bless America,

Bob Dole.

Mr. President, this week marks the 50th anniversary of the desegregation of Little Rock Central High School, a victory for equality in education that was only secured with the help of Federal troops. The images that came out of Little Rock in September 1953 remain indelible: the National Guard literally standing in the way of equal education; a citizens' blockade threatening to break into mob violence at the mere thought of sharing their school with Black students; and the quiet dignity and courage of the Little Rock Nine. Their determination to claim their rights is still a source of inspiration, but the rest of the Little Rock crisis is a source of shame.

So we do two things on this 50th anniversary. First and foremost, we honor the nine young students who integrated Little Rock and who gave eloquent testimony that equality begins with education. We thank them today: Ernest Green, Elizabeth Eckford, Jefferson Thomas, Terrence Roberts, Carlotta Walls LaNier, Minnijean Brown, Gloria Ray Karlmark, Thelma Mothershed, and Melba Pattillo Beals.

But second, we need to forthrightly face the truth this week: 50 years later and 53 years after Brown v. Board of Education, the work they helped begin is still incomplete. Segregation in law is over, but who can doubt that it persists in fact? National Guard troops may no longer be blocking children from the door to an equal eduation, but the forces that have taken their place, if less visible, are no less potent.

Whether an American child has good teachers, whether that child has up-to-date textbooks, whether that child goes to school in a safe, modern building--all of these educational essentials depdend far too much on where that child happens to live. In fact, America--the country that struck down segregation more than a half-century ago--ranks at the bottom of developed countries in the disparity of schooling it offers to the rich and the poor. Why doesn't that gap shame us just as much as anything that happened in Little Rock?

Mr. President, a textbook published in this millenium should not be a luxury. Modern school buildings and computers and libraries should not be luxuries. Qualified teachers, competent guidance counselors, rigorous curricula, small classes--they should not

be luxuries. Children should not be entitled to them because they happen to live in affluence; they are entitled to them because they live in America.

Let us look to this important anniversary for inspiration to desegregate American education for good and for all--to complete the work begun so bravely by the Little Rock Nine.

Mr. President, I want to take a few brief moments to explain my votes this afternoon on two amendments to the Defense authorization bill. The first, a resolution offered by my good friend from Delaware, and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden, expressed the Senate's support for helping the Iraqis to seek a political solution to the current conflict in that country by supporting three Federal regions in Iraq.

It is still my position that the United States should not impose a political solution on the Iraqis to which Iraqis are opposed. According to recent polling in Iraq, it seems as though Iraqis are not yet ready to divide their country along these lines. However, sectarian divisions are already occurring by huge internal displacements in Iraq which are direct results of the level of carnage and violence in that country. And if Iraqis should decide that they would like to devolve their country into three separate sectarian regions, and if they choose this method as the best means for ending the current conflict in that country, then I would wholeheartedly support that decision. This resolution calls for exploring that option, and if Iraqis decide to do so, then I will strongly support such action.

I am deeply worried by the language contained in the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, and for what purposes this language was introduced. Let me be very clear, the Iranian regime is behaving in deeply troubling ways, in its quest to secretly acquire nuclear weapons, to destabilize Iraq and Lebanon, and by calling for the destruction of the State of Israel. We must deal with the various threats Iran poses in an effective, smart, and multilateral way, and I am prepared to do just that.

But we must also learn the lessons of the runup to the Iraq war, when this body passed seemingly innocuous nonbinding language that ended up having profound consequences. Our President must use robust diplomacy to address our concerns with Iran, not turn to the language in the Kyl amendment to justify his action if he decides to draw this country into another disastrous war of choice.

I wholeheartedly agree that we should increase the economic pressure on the Revolutionary Guard, or any other entity of Iran, and that is why as chairman of the Banking Committee, I held a hearing to determine how best to use targeted, robust, and effective sanctions against any elements in the Iranian regime who are supporting and exporting terrorism and extremism.

But this amendment would not increase economic pressure on the Iranian regime--instead it would provide bellicose rhetoric which may serve as the basis of future military action against Iran. For that reason, I staunchly oppose it.

Madam President, I wanted to take a moment to explain why I voted against the Levin-Reed amendment on Iraq.

Let me say at the outset that I am second to none in this body in my opposition to the President's failed policy in Iraq. Yesterday I spoke in strong support and voted for the Feingold-Reid amendment that would have set forth a clear and enforceable deadline for ending our military involvement in the unwinnable civil war in Iraq. Sadly, only 27 of our colleagues joined with me in voting for the Feingold-Reid amendment.

I do not doubt the sincerity of Senators Levin and Reed in offering their amendment. These have been two articulate voices in the Senate calling for a change in our policy in Iraq for some time now. They like many of our colleagues have spoken out strongly about the failure of the President's policy and highlighted the fact that this policy has made our Nation less safe and has broken our military. But I believe this President will not admit failure or change policy unless we force him to, and the only effective instrument available to this Congress to do so is to exercise its power of the purse and cut off funding for this war, once our men and women in uniform have been safely withdrawn from Iraq. That is what the Feingold amendment would have accomplished, and that is what any amendment that I will vote for henceforth must do.

We all know this President doesn't understand subtlety. He has demonstrated time and time again that he doesn't respect this Congress or even the law. How many signing statements has this President issued in which he outlines ways to ignore or circumvent the laws written by this Congress? Too many. How many innocent Americans have been subject to illegal, warrantless wiretaps authorized by this President? Too many. How many falsehoods and deceits have been perpetrated by this President to justify his disastrous war of choice in Iraq? Too many.

There is only one way to force this President to change course in Iraq and that is to take away the money required for him to conduct that war. Iraqi officials need to be convinced as well that we truly mean it when we say it is time for them to take responsibility for their country and not count on us indefinitely to fight their fight for them.

If we are truly being honest with the American people when we say we are fighting to end this failed policy, we must do everything possible to do so. That is why while I respect the efforts of my colleagues Senators Levin and Reed, I felt compelled to vote against their amendment.

I hope the next time this body debates the war in Iraq, many more of our colleagues will join with Senator Feingold and me in voting for a clear and enforceable deadline to end our military involvement in Iraq and set on a new course that makes our Nation more secure and allows our broken military to begin to rebuild.

Too many days have passed and too many lives have been lost while this Congress has stood by and not acted. That must end.

Mr. President, let me say to both my colleague from Wisconsin and my colleague from Arizona, I was the floor manager of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation. I feel as though, in a sense here, I am assuming the role again as the manager between the McCain and Feingold camps on this question. They were two people who joined forces together on a critical issue before our country, and I was honored and pleased to manage the legislation which was named for them.

We find ourselves here again on a different subject matter and assuming different roles. I am not managing the issue, but I would be remiss if I didn't also express my deep respect for my colleague, the Senator from Wisconsin, for his leadership and my affection and respect for my colleague from Arizona, with whom I have worked on a number of issues over the years.

I rise in support of the Feingold-Reid amendment. I believe it is a very important amendment. This may be the critical vote, candidly, on whether we are going to persist over the coming months, until January 2009, in a policy that has failed--or whether we can actually make a difference here, and change the direction of this policy, and give our Nation a sense of new hope, new optimism, and give those who have served so valiantly an opportunity to come home or to engage in an area where their leadership is needed. This is the moment. This may be the one opportunity we have between now and 2009 to make a difference on this issue. This is no small proposal; this is a serious one.

For those who would like to wish it were a little bit this way or that way, that is no reason to be against it. Senator Feingold, once again, has offered us an opportunity here to make a difference in this policy. This may be the one real opportunity we get to do that. My hope is that in the next hour and a half, those who are listening to this debate, thinking about this, will understand the moment before us, and take advantage of this opportunity, and make a decision that could affect the future of our country in this century.

Out of 2 full days General Petraeus spent testifying before Congress, I think the most telling exchange took only four lines. There were hearings that went on in the House of Representatives. We had hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee and hearings in the Armed Services Committee. There were very good questions raised by members of both parties, but I commend my colleague from Virginia, Senator John Warner, the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the ranking member today, for his simple question. We have often seen this happen in history. It is one simple sentence, one simple question--not the complicated, multiphrase question, which gets into all the nuances and details of an issue--that will shed the most light on where we stand.

Senator McCain said something a minute ago with which I totally agree, and Senator Feingold reiterated it. The primary purpose, the fundamental issue before this body, before every Member here and certainly before the President of the United States, is the issue of the safety and security of our country. That is our paramount responsibility above all else--to keep our country safe and secure. So the four-line question that was raised to General Petraeus in his testimony on September 11 was the most important question, in many ways, that was asked of him.

Senator Warner: Do you feel that [the Iraq war] is making

America safer?

General Petraeus: I believe that this is indeed the best

course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq.

Senator Warner: Does it make America safer?

General Petraeus: I don't know, actually.

``I don't know, actually.'' It could be the epitaph of this war. And to the families of the 3,791 men and women who lost their lives in Iraq, it must be cold comfort indeed that the commanding general has not even convinced himself that this war serves our security. But in another sense, General Petraeus gave precisely the right answer. He has no opinion because it is his job to have none.

His job is to execute a mission--work that he has done with great fortitude and intellect. But the job of deciding whether the mission serves our interests--deciding what our interests are, deciding what the mission itself will be--that is a task for the general's superiors--that is, the President of the United States, this body and the other, and the American people, who are our superiors.

This amendment is our best attempt--maybe the only attempt--to give voice to their shared conclusion: that our current course has failed to make Iraq safer, has failed to make America safer, and so must change dramatically. The amendment would accomplish two critical things.

One: Redeploy combat forces from Iraq.

Two: Focus those forces remaining on counterterrorism, training Iraqi forces, and force protection for U.S. personnel and infrastructure.

I will not rehearse for you the administration's ever-shifting justifications and stalling and stonewalling that have brought us, with a battered military and an equally battered reputation, to this sad point. It is enough to say that they have been given every chance. For months and months, they denied that there was a civil war in Iraq. Then, when denial became impossible, and when the bipartisan Iraq Study Group report gave them a unique chance to change course, they scrapped the report and gambled on a surge.

Then we were told that, despite the administration's catastrophic policy failures, we should take their word for it--that we couldn't judge this new tactic's success until American forces had ``surged'' to their maximum levels. And that would take up 6 months.

Once the surge was at full force, we were told yet again that the time wasn't right, that we had to withhold judgment again and wait until General Petraeus's report. And last week, General Petraus came before Congress and told us--to wait some more.

For what?

Early this month, Comptroller General David Walker testified that ``the primary point of the surge was to improve security . . . in order to provide political breathing room'' for the Iraqi Government.

Seven hundred American service men and women sacrificed their lives for that breathing room, and nearly 4,400 took wounds for it. What has the Iraqi Government done with it? It failed to meet its own political benchmarks, failed to enact oil legislation, sustained a mass resignation of Sunni politicians, leaving more than half of its cabinet seats vacant, and enjoyed a month-long vacation.

At the height of the surge, a BBC poll reported that 60 percent of Iraqis--and 93 percent of Sunnis--think it is justified to kill American troops. It is no surprise that Walker concluded that ``as of this point in time, [the surge] has not achieved its desired outcome.''

That is what the surge has gotten us. What has it gotten Iraqis? At the very best, a reduction in violence to still-catastrophic early-2006 levels. And even so, the statistics we saw last week were extremely subject--as are all statistics--to the biases of those compiling and categorizing them. According to the Washington Post, ``Intelligence analysts . . . are puzzled over how the military designated attacks as combat, sectarian, or criminal''--difficult categorizations that, I might add, make all the difference to selling the surge as success, or recognizing it as a failure.

Comptroller General Walker added that ``there are several different sources in the administration on violence, and those sources do not agree.'' One intelligence official put it succinctly: ``Depending on which numbers you pick, you get a different outcome.'' In that context, it is significant that the military cannot track, and does not track, Shiite-on-Shiite and Sunni-on-Sunni violence. And in Baghdad alone, according to the Iraqi Red Crescent, ``almost a million people . . .

have fled their homes in search of security, shelter, water, electricity, functioning schools or jobs to support their families.''

And those are the results with the surge--a surge that, given the exhausted state of our military, cannot physically be sustained. The administration's supporters need to explain to us: Without the surge, what could possibly happen, that has not taken place already, to bring political reconciliation to Iraq?

What more could possibly happen to quell the violence between and among Iraq's Sunnis and Shiites? What new development could possibly change the face of this war? We all know the honest answers to those questions.

And so the choice we have today is not, as some would have it, between victory and defeat. That has never been the issue. We can choose indefinite war for invisible gains; or we can choose to cut our losses here and recognize that there is a better opportunity with a different course of action. I can't remember a more painful choice in all my years in this body. But to govern is to make just such painful choices, without fear or flinching. And I believe the American people are far ahead of us on this issue--they've made their choice. We must make ours as their Representatives.

This amendment seeks to put that choice into action and to stop Iraq's downward spiral. First, it sets firm and enforceable timelines for the phased redeployment of combat troops out of Iraq.

The redeployed forces would be comprised of a majority of the deployed Army Brigade Combat Teams and the Marine Expeditionary Force currently in theater. Some may claim that such a redeployment is logistically impossible within the timeframes laid out in the amendment. But I would remind them that in the ramp-up to the first gulf war, the Department of Defense coordinated the movement of over 500,000 troops, and 10 million tons of cargo and fuel in the same timeframe that this amendment grants to redeploy a force one-fifth the size.

In January of 1991--1 month alone--the Transportation Command moved 132,000 troops and 910,000 tons of equipment. So it is clear that we have the wherewithal to end this war, if Congress could find the will. At the same time, we cannot simply wish the conflict away. We do have enemies in Iraq, enemies equally committed to killing Americans and sowing sectarian violence. That is why this amendment carves out exceptions to the general redeployment.

Using the name of al-Qaida is a means to frighten Americans into buying a far broader agenda of continuous occupation. It's no coincidence that, in President Bush's televised remarks on Iraq last week, the word ``al-Qaida'' crossed his lips some 12 times in a speech roughly 15 minutes long.

The amendment makes three noncombat exceptions: first, conducting counterterrorism operations; second, training and Iraqi forces; and third, protecting U.S. personnel and infrastructure.

It is beyond clear that continuing our course in Iraq harms America in the broader fight against terrorism. In an article in the Financial Times, Gideon Rachman summarized the key ways the war in Iraq has actually strengthened terrorism: by diverting resources from fighting al-Qaida in Afghanistan; by turning Iraq into a failed state and terrorist-incubator; by delivering al-Qaida a potent recruiting tool; and by harming America's standing with its traditional allies, whose cooperation is necessary to foil terrorists. All four reasons are clearly being enhanced because of our continued military presence in Iraq.

On the other side of the coin, tightly focusing our Iraq mission actually aids our security in the long run.

That certainly is the case when you consider the quote from a recent IPS article on CENTCOM's commander, ADM William Fallon--General Petraeus's superior, I might add. Admiral Fallon ``believed the United States should be withdrawing troops from Iraq urgently, largely because he saw greater dangers elsewhere in the region.'' With al-Qaida reconstituting itself on the Pakistan-Afghan border, I could not agree more.

With redeployment complete, I want our military to begin to regather its strength. After a one-time redeployment cost estimated by the Congressional Budget Office at $7 billion, which is about equal to this war's cost every month, our Armed Forces will have the resources needed to prepare for future challenges.

Those resources are sorely needed. Long, arduous deployments are not only testing the morale of our troops and families, they are taxing critical stocks of aircraft, vehicles, and other equipment. Two-thirds of the U.S. Army--two-thirds of the U.S. Army--is unable to report for combat duty.

According to the National Guard Bureau Chief, LTG Steven Blum, ``88 percent''--his words, not mine--``88 percent of the Army National Guard forces that are back here in the United States are very poorly equipped today.''

That shortage affects National Guard units in every State, and every one of our colleagues knows it. It is the picture of a military that has been ground into the dirt, unit by unit, machine by machine, soldier by soldier.

Do the President's supporters think this can go on forever? Will they come to this floor and claim we are invulnerable? If General Petraeus does not know, actually, whether this war is making us safer, let's ask another question: Is this war endangering our security?

Our military's top generals and admirals know the answer to that question. They have submitted to Congress a list of critical priorities that President Bush's budget ignores. As we squander billions of dollars every week in Iraq, they are calling out for help to meet our military's needs to repair the damage this administration has caused.

Our top generals and admirals know better than anyone how deeply our military is hurting. We must meet these obligations to our war-fighters because it is, in the end, our obligation to keep safe the people we represent.

As I said at the outset, the question from Senator John Warner--the simple, one-line question asked of General Petraeus--was the single most important question asked during 2 days of hearings: Are we safer? The answer, tragically, is no. What a disaster if this war of choice ultimately left us unready and unarmed to fight a war we did not choose.

Clear data, long experience, and common sense tell us all how to answer the question that General Petraeus could not. I do not blame him for staying silent. It is his duty, in that moment, to be agnostic. I understand that. But it is our duty not to be agnostic. We do not have that luxury as Members of the Senate charged with the responsibility of deciding whether this conflict goes on.

We cannot remain silent. We cannot beg off the answer to that question: Are we safer? Are we more secure? We know what the answer is. Now we bear the responsibility to this generation and to history to answer the question. It is our duty to choose, a duty to choose at this moment, even when there is heartache in either hand. I choose to draw the line here because I cannot stand to lose one more life in the name of misplaced hope and blind faith.

I call on our colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, not to lose this moment. This will be the only moment, I suspect, before January of 2009 to answer this question. How many more lives will be irreparably damaged and lost because we failed to answer the question posed by our colleague from Wisconsin, which I am proud to join him in asking today. Let us bring this tragic chapter in our history to a close and offer new hope to this country, and the Iraqis, and that desperate region.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for H.R. 3580, the FDA Amendments Act of 2007. H.R. 3580 contains two bills which I authored, the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Amendments of 2007 and the Pediatric Medical Device Safety and Improvement Act of 2007. I believe these bills will go a long way toward improving the health and safety our Nation's children. The bill will also make important changes to our Nation's drug safety system so that the FDA has clear authority backed up by new enforcement tools to ensure the safety of prescription drugs once they are on the market.

As the original author of BPCA in 1997 and its two subsequent reauthorizations, I am proud to say that no other program in history has done more to spur research and generate critical information about the use of prescription drugs in children than this one. In 10 years, nearly 800 studies involving more than 45,000 children in clinical trials have been completed due to BPCA. Useful new pediatric information is now part of product labeling for more than 119 drugs. In sum, there has been a twentyfold increase in the number of drugs studied in infants, children, and adolescents as a result of BPCA since its enactment.

Ten years ago when Senator Mike DeWine and I undertook this effort, only 11 drugs on the market that were being used in children had actually been tested and studied for their use. Prior to the enactment of BPCA 10 years ago, pediatricians were essentially flying blind because they lacked information regarding the safety and effectiveness of drugs they were prescribing for children. But it was children who suffered the most from taking drugs where so little was known about their effects.

With BPCA, we have changed the landscape both for drug companies and the FDA with respect to prescription drugs and children. However, we still have much further to go because even with the progress we have made so far, still less than half of all drugs being used in children have been studied for their use. H.R. 3580 makes several key improvements to BPCA that will better inform parents, pediatricians, and the public about the safety and effectiveness of drugs used in children. For instance, H.R. 3580 will improve transparency and accountability by making written requests for pediatric studies public and it will improve the accuracy and speed of labeling changes as a result of BPCA studies.

However, H.R. 3580 represents a real missed opportunity to inject a measure of rationality into this program to ensure that it will continue to thrive well into the future. H.R. 3580 dropped a Democratic compromise provision reducing the length of pediatric exclusivity from the current 6 months to 4.5 months only for blockbuster drugs, drugs with annual sales exceeding $1 billion. Five years ago and again recently, my colleagues on both sides of the Capitol dome have criticized this program over the 6-month length of the exclusivity that may be granted if the FDA believes a drug company successfully completed the pediatric studies it requested of them.

Most recently, data released by researchers at Duke University show that some companies receive as much as 73 times the amount they spent to conduct the pediatric trial under the 6 months of exclusivity. BPCA has always been about balancing the needs of children with the cost to consumers. That is why I strongly supported the provision I authored in the Senate bill, S. 1082, which reduced the length of exclusivity to 3 months for blockbuster drugs.

I was proud to have brokered a compromise between the House and Senate of 4.5 months for blockbuster drugs because this agreement was the right policy. But I am profoundly disappointed that the decision was made to drop this compromise. When my colleagues seek to make similar changes to the length of exclusivity in 5 years, I believe that the deal the House and Senate cut in H.R. 3580 will only make doing so more difficult.

I must also express my strong disappointment that the final bill inserts a 5-year sunset on the Pediatric Research Equity Act. As an original cosponsor of the reauthorization of PREA and a long-standing supporter of ensuring FDA has the authority to require pediatric studies of drugs in certain circumstances, there should be no expiration date on FDA's authority to ensure the safety of drugs in children.

The interplay between BPCA and PREA is changed slightly in H.R. 3580 from the Senate-passed bill. It is my understanding that H.R. 3580 will not delay the FDA's ability to utilize PREA's authority to require a pediatric assessment of new drugs that have not yet been approved should a company decline a written request under BPCA for such drug.

Similarly, an exhaustion provision was retained in BPCA that would allow the Secretary to take up to 30 days to certify in the affirmative that the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health has sufficient funding to initiate and fund all studies in a declined written request before determining whether an assessment under PREA can be required. Although the Secretary may take up to 30 days to make such a certification, the Secretary need not impose any delay before determining whether an assessment under PREA is warranted. As the Government Accountability Office found in its March 2007 report on BPCA, contributions to the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health by the drug industry totaled a mere $4 million since 2002. While I hope contributions to the foundation will improve significantly, there should be no unnecessary delays when it comes to important safety information about medications prescribed to our children.

Mr. President, BPCA has shown us that it is unsafe to simply treat children as small adults. Children face a similar inequity with respect to medical devices. Far too few medical devices are specifically designed for children's small and growing bodies. Experts say that the development of children's medical devices lags 5 to 10 years behind that of adults. That is largely due to the limited size of the market for pediatric devices.

When a medical device suitable for a child is needed to save that child's life but it does not exist, doctors are often forced to ``jury- rig'' adult versions of the device or, in some cases, perform a riskier surgery on the child. Ventilator masks, for instance, are far too large to fit over a baby's mouth. Often, the only alternative is to run an invasive tube down the baby's throat.

Because of what we witnessed over the past 10 years with the market incentives provided under BPCA, I introduced an initiative, the Pediatric Medical Device Safety and Improvement Act, to create similar incentives for device manufacturers. I am pleased that this legislation is contained within H.R. 3580 and I believe it will produce tremendous improvements in children's health.

This legislation streamlines the approval process for cutting-edge technology and establishes grants for matchmaking between inventors and manufacturers and the Federal Government. It is my hope that the FDA will

utilize its Office of Orphan Products Development to administer these matchmaking demonstration grants.

Balancing safety with reasonable incentives, this legislation closely mirrors recommendations made by the IOM in its 2005 report on pediatric medical device safety to improve the serious flaws in the current postmarket safety surveillance of these devices. Specifically, the IOM called for and the legislation allows the FDA to require postmarket studies as a condition of clearance or approval for certain categories of devices and it gives the FDA the ability to require studies longer than 3 years with respect to a device that is to have significant use in pediatric populations if such studies would be necessary to address longer-term pediatric questions, such as the impact on growth and development. This provision should not be seen to encourage or promote off-label pediatric use of devices that have been cleared or approved for adult use but for which there is no or limited safety and effectiveness data concerning uses in children.

H.R. 3580 will also go a long way toward restoring the public's confidence in the FDA to protect them against harmful prescription drugs and foods. For too long, the FDA has lacked the clear authority to require labeling changes when new safety information about a drug arises. H.R. 3580 will change that.

For too long, the pressure on FDA to approve drugs has outweighed the necessity to have a systemic, unbiased review of the post-market safety of drugs whereby the FDA can take swift action should new safety information arise. I am pleased that the drug safety provisions of H.R. 3580 will require contain requirements that the FDA's office responsible for post-market safety of drugs have equal footing with the office responsible for reviewing drugs.

As the author of S. 467, the Fair Access to Clinical Trials Act, I am pleased that H.R. 3580 contains many major improvements to the clinical trials provisions. Physicians, researchers, and the public will now have access to a clinical trials registry with information on results, making it tougher for companies to hide or skew undesirable clinical trial results data.

I would like to thank Chairman Kennedy for his leadership on this bill and his willingness to work so closely with me to improve children's health. I would also like to recognize the many staff who put in long hours and weekends working on this legislation. In particular, I would like to commend Tamar Magarik and Jeremy Sharp, of my staff, who worked extensively on this bill.

Mr. President, the past several years have been marked with major drug controversies--Vioxx, Ketek, Avandia--with millions of families affected. The public deserves better. The mission of the FDA, to protect the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, must be restored. H.R. 3580 provides the necessary reforms to restore the FDA as the gold standard for assuring the safety of the public for many years to come.

Mr. President, I rise to once again voice my support for the Specter-Leahy-Dodd amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization Act. This amendment will restore habeas corpus rights to individuals held in U.S. custody.

Just as importantly, it will begin to undo the damage done by the Military Commissions Act of 2006--legislation that undermined our values and our commitment to the rule of law. In a struggle with terrorism in which our credibility, our good name, is a powerful weapon, the Military Commissions Act was not simply wrongheaded; it was dangerous. The amendment we offer today is a first step out of that danger and back to our moral authority.

Critics of this amendment in the Bush administration and elsewhere have argued that restoring habeas corpus rights will clog Federal courts and hamper our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is simply not true.

First, in keeping with long tradition, this amendment only applies to individuals held on clearly defined U.S. territory, including Guantanamo--but not to individuals held in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. Several individuals filing habeas petitions from Iraq and Afghanistan have already been denied. The truth is that a relatively small number of individuals are covered by this amendment. Right now, fewer than 500 people are held in Guantanamo Bay. It is simply not credible to suggest that thousands or millions of petitions would deluge our courts and grind them to a halt. From 2002 to 2006, when detainees had the ability to file habeas petitions, the Federal courts continued to run smoothly. Last year, a distinguished group of retired judges wrote to Congress, stating clearly that habeas petitions from detainees in no way tied up our courts.

Second, habeas petitions heavily favor the Government's position. They are often decided solely by paper filings by the Government, and Federal judges have wide discretion in determining what type of evidence they need to make their determinations. In addition, usually only a minimal amount of evidence is needed to justify continued detention. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that U.S. servicemembers will be called from the battlefield to testify before a Federal judge.

Finally, many of those who oppose this amendment have relied on Justice Jackson's opinion in Johnson v. Eisenstrager to defend the stripping of habeas rights to detainees. But Eisentrager has been overtaken by more recent cases. Justice Jackson's opinion in that case relied in part on the fact that the petitioners were German prisoners of war who were imprisoned outside the United States. In 2004, however, the Supreme Court held in Rasul v. Bush that the U.S. courts have jurisdiction to hear challenges to the legality of detention of foreign nationals held there because the United States had complete jurisdiction and control over the base at Guantanamo. In other words, the Supreme Court itself rejected the Government's reliance on Eisentrager as it applies to individuals held in Guantanamo. That was the very decision that prompted the President and Congress to strip detainees of habeas rights with the Military Commissions Act.

In ignoring the most recent precedent, President Bush and his supporters are ignoring the history of the very bill they are now fighting to uphold. Their reliance on outdated rulings is, at best, disingenuous. Willfully or not, they have once again distorted the facts.

I believe that returning to the legal framework that was in place prior to the Military Commissions Act would not undermine our security. In fact, I believe reaffirming our commitment to the rule of law will strengthen our efforts to combat terrorism--we can protect our security and uphold our values at the same time. And so I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, for 4 long years, our Nation has been engaged in a war without a clear objective, exit strategy, or international mandate, and the consequences of such policies have been devastating. Our moral standing in the world has plummeted. Iraq is now mired in civil war, and terrorists have found a recruiting and training ground for attacking American troops. But few effects of this war are more troubling than the destructive impact this war has had on our Armed Forces.

Approximately 3,800 brave American servicemembers have been killed in Iraq, and tens of thousands have been severely wounded. Military families have been forced to endure long and repeated stretches of time without their loved ones. And most significant, our forces have been stretched thin to a near-breaking point. This can be seen in the ever increasing number of suicides among our returning servicemembers, alltime low reenlistment rates, and the destruction of our military families. The adage is true--we recruit a soldier, but we retain a family. And if that family is broken, so, too, will be the soldier.

While long deployments are testing our troops in the field, they are also

taxing critical stocks of combat gear and training time. According to some reports, over two-thirds of our Army and 88 percent of our National Guard are unable to report for duty due to equipment shortfalls and insufficient military instruction stateside.

The bipartisan Webb amendment is an important step toward restoring our military's readiness and providing the important support that our servicemembers and families need and deserve.

It would implement two simple principles--if a unit or member of a Regular component of the Armed Forces deploys to Iraq or Afghanistan, they will have the same time at home before they are redeployed. No unit or member of a Reserve component, including the National Guard, could be redeployed to Iraq or Afghanistan within 3 years of their previous deployment.

These are the very principles incoming Secretary of Defense Robert Gates committed to months ago. And now, the distinguished junior Senator from Virginia has modified his proposal to address objections raised concerning both the time the Pentagon needs to implement it and the flexibility needed for our special operations forces, SOF.

Senator Webb's amendment now allows 120 days for the Department to implement its provisions and provides exceptions for SOF. But as is clear, the administration still objects to any interference by this body in how we expect our troops to be treated. Of course, this body has a unique role in the governance of our Armed Forces. Specifically, article 1, section 8 of the Constitution states that the Congress shall have the power to, `` make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.'' Obviously, the Founding Fathers of this great Nation had a very specific idea of how the Congress should behave with respect to the troops--that Congress, and Congress alone, should have the power and authority to govern and regulate our forces. We can see first hand the tragedy that occurs when the administration is given a free hand to engage our troops in conflict without any oversight from this body--and we should reassert our constitutional prerogative.

Since the war's beginning I have tried to advance initiatives that would reverse the administration's irresponsible defense policies, so that our troops would be prepared and protected in combat and our country made safer. In 2003, I offered an amendment to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill to add $322 million for critical protective gear identified by the Army that the Bush administration had failed to include in their budget. But it was blocked by the administration and their allies. In 2004 and 2005, I authored legislation, signed into law, to reimburse troops for equipment that they had to purchase on their own because the Rumsfeld Pentagon failed to provide them with the body armor and other gear they needed to stay safe. And last year, working with Senators Inouye, Reed, and Stevens, I offered an amendment to help address a $17 billion budget shortfall to replace and repair thousands of war-battered tanks, aircraft, and vehicles. Without these additional resources, the Army Chief of Staff claimed that U.S. Army readiness would deteriorate even further. This provision was approved unanimously and enacted in law. But much more remains to be done.

Senator Webb's amendment is an important first step, but it is only the first step. Ultimately, we need to withdraw our combat forces as quickly as possible. This can only be accomplished by changing our mission in Iraq, and it will only be accomplished when this body finally stands up to the administration and their failed policies and enacts legislation that will bring our troops home. I strongly support this amendment and hope all of our colleagues do as well.

Mr. President, today we will vote on whether or not to take up one of the most important pieces of civil rights and voting rights legislation the Senate will consider in this Congress: the DC House Voting Rights Act of 2007. After months of careful consideration by the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, floor action on this bill has been blocked by a filibuster. We will soon see if there are sufficient votes to break that filibuster and enable it to move forward. We are in this procedural position because some of my Republican colleagues have persistently refused to even allow the Senate to take up and debate this measure, insisting on throwing up procedural roadblocks all along the way. I urge my colleagues to vote to bring this bill to the floor, and if that effort succeeds, to support its adoption.

There is nothing more fundamental to the vitality and endurance of a democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people than the people's right to vote. In the words of Thomas Paine: ``The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which other rights are protected.'' It is, in fact, the right on which all others in our democracy depend. The Constitution guarantees it, and the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly underscored that it is one of our most precious and fundamental rights as citizens.

Although not all Americans were entitled to vote in the early days of the Republic, virtually all legal restrictions on the franchise have since been eliminated, including those based on race, sex, wealth, property ownership, and marital status. Americans living in the Nation's Capital also deserve to have voting representation in the body that makes their laws, taxes them, and can call them to war.

Even with most explicit barriers to voting removed, we still have a way to go before we get to the point where all Americans are able to participate without obstacle in our elections, and with confidence in the voting systems they use. In the 2000 Presidential election, 51.2 percent of the eligible American electorate voted. And although in the 2004 Presidential election voting participation reached its highest level since 1968, only 60.7 percent of eligible Americans voted. That dropped back down, in the 2006 off-year elections, to just over 40 percent. We should do everything we can to strengthen voter registration efforts and to move the election reform process forward in this Congress, and at the same time to extend voting representation to the nearly 600,000 people--hard-working, taxpaying U.S. citizens who fight for our country and serve on juries and fulfill their other civic duties--who live within the borders of the District of Columbia.

I know that some opponents argue that the reasons the Founders made the Nation's Capital a separate district, rather than locate it within a State, remain sound, and therefore we should not tinker with their work, even at the cost of continued disenfranchisement of DC's citizens. That argument ignores the fundamental commitment we all must have to extending the franchise to all Americans. And it ignores the fact that article I of the Constitution explicitly gives Congress legislative authority over the District ``in all cases whatsoever.'' The courts have over time described this power as ``extraordinary and plenary'' and ``full and unlimited,'' and decades of legislative and judicial precedents make clear that the simple word ``states'' in article I (which provides that the House of Representatives ``shall be composed of members chosen . . . by the people of the several states''), does not trump, Congress's legislative authority to grant representation in the House to citizens of the District.

I know that Senator Hatch, Lieberman, and others have already thoroughly covered this important legal ground, so I will not belabor the history. But when even conservative legal scholars--from Judges Ken

Starr and Patricia Wald to former Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh--have done exhaustive legal analyses which outline the positive case for Congress ceding representational rights to citizens of the District, you know there is a strong case to be made. In any event, it is clear to me that these important constitutional questions should ultimately be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court, and enactment of this bill would enable us to do just that. If opponents of the bill are so certain of their constitutional arguments, they should, it seems to me, allow those arguments to be tested in the full light of day, in the courts, and resolved once and for all. The bill provides for expedited consideration of appropriate court challenges. If it were to be enacted and then struck down because of constitutional infirmities, it would then be clear that a constitutional amendment is the only viable alternative left to DC citizens.

This is the latest in a series of proposals to extend full rights of representation to voters in the District. In 1978, with overwhelming bipartisan support, both Chambers of Congress passed the DC voting rights constitutional amendment, which would have given District residents voting representation in the House and the Senate, by two- thirds majority in each Chamber. The amendment required 38 States to ratify it, but it fell short. In 1993, the House voted to give partial voting representation to the DC delegate in the ``Committee of the Whole'' of the House, unless her vote actually determined the outcome, in which case it would not be counted. That is obviously no real voting ``right'' at all, if it can be taken away when it really counts.

There have been many differing proposals over the years to extend the right to vote to DC citizens, from constitutional amendments to statehood legislation to retrocession proposals. Since many Americans would be shocked to learn that something as basic as voting representation is now withheld from certain of our citizens, and it is coming in a particular historical context in which Utah is poised to gain an additional House seat due to its growing population, let me describe briefly what this bill would actually do.

First, it would create two new permanent seats in the House of Representatives, one for the District of Columbia and the other for Utah. An election for the seat in DC would be held in 2008 and the new representative would be sworn in for the 111th Congress. The bill explicitly states that DC can only be considered one district and receive only one seat in all future censuses.

It also repeals the District of Columbia delegate and other related language once a full voting representative is sworn into the 111th Congress. Finally, it would allow the State of Utah to create a Fourth District, not an at-large seat, using census data from 2000. The election for that seat would be held in 2008. This seat would be guaranteed to Utah for the 111th Congress and the 112th Congress until another census is done and new districts are made in 2012. It also explicitly says that the District should not be considered a State for the purpose of representation in the Senate; that question is left for another day.

Mr. President, as my colleague Senator Hatch has observed, there are really two fundamental questions here for the Senate to consider. The first is the constitutional question about whether Congress may enact legislation to address this issue. The second is an essentially political question about whether we should enact such legislation. I have briefly addressed the first. On the second, I think there really should not be much of a debate. Citizens of the District, a majority of them African-Americans, who fulfill all of the duties of citizenship, ought to have the right to vote and be represented in Congress as decisions are made about their taxes, about war and peace, or about any of the myriad other questions that Congress faces every day.

This is not a perfect bill. There are provisions of it that some oppose, and that I might have drawn differently. But it is an exquisitely balanced compromise, and I believe it deserves our support. I commend Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Minority Member Collins for developing the bill, and I congratulate the majority leader for bringing it to the floor today. We know it enjoys the support of a large majority of Americans--over 80 percent in national polls support the proposition that DC residents should be represented in Congress. I hope it will garner the broad support in the Senate it deserves. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote aye to enable this measure to come to the floor, and to support it when it does.

Mr. President, I rise today to commend Yale University and the Government of Peru on their agreement to settle a 6-year-long dispute over Incan artifacts.

Nearly 100 years ago, Yale history professor Hiram Bingham made a historic archeological discovery near the famed Incan city of Machu Picchu. His find, which included over 300 artifacts, featuring rare examples of jewelry and ceramic pottery, helped bring worldwide attention to the rich culture of the Incan peoples. For the past 95 years, these artifacts, which were claimed by the Peruvian Government, have been in the possession of Yale University.

The landmark agreement, reached on September 14, 2007, between Yale University and the Government of Peru, which includes the creation of a traveling international exhibition featuring these priceless historical artifacts, is a symbol of both parties' dedication to international cooperation and scholarship. I applaud Yale University and the Peruvian Government for finding a compromise that will allow scholars, students, and interested people from across the globe and from all walks of life to enjoy these splendid cultural artifacts for generations to come.

Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 558, the Mental Health Parity Act of 2007. After many months of negotiations, I am pleased to call myself a strong supporter of this legislation. I thank the Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and pensions Committee and the senior Senator

from New Mexico for working with me and congratulate them on passage of S. 558. They and their staff have worked long hours to craft this compromise bill. Supporters of mental health parity, old and new, should commend the leadership of Senators Kennedy and Domenici for their years of commitment and struggle to pass expanded Federal mental health parity legislation.

Millions of Americans are affected by mental illness. Each year, more than 50 million American adults will suffer from a mental disorder. All of us know a friend, a relative, a neighbor, a colleague whose life has been touched by mental illness, either their own or the illness of a loved one. Yet despite the compelling need, under many health plans, mental health benefits are much more limited than benefits for medical or surgical care. Even though a range of effective treatments exist for almost all mental disorders, those suffering from mental illness often face increased barriers to care and the stigma that underlies discriminatory practices in how we treat mental illness. These are the individuals that have insurance. It can only be worse for those without insurance. Mental health must not take a backseat to other health conditions.

My own State of Connecticut recognized the disparity between insurance coverage for physical and mental illness and made significant steps to address it by enacting strong mental health parity and consumer protection laws. These laws far exceed what exists currently at the Federal level and I believe the bill being passed by the Senate today will allow my State to maintain those strong laws in the future.

I was an original cosponsor of the original mental health parity bill in 1996 along with Senator Domenici and the late Senator Wellstone and have been a strong supporter of efforts to strengthen that bill since it was signed into law. But the legislation the HELP Committee marked up last February was different from what our late colleague Paul championed for so many years. The legislation our committee marked up contained preemption language which was broader in scope than what was in Federal mental health parity bills in the past.

For that reason, I offered amendments during that markup to address preemption in a way I believed would have taken a major step toward protecting State insurance laws and ensuring that we do no harm to State-based consumer protections through passage of Federal mental health parity. At that markup, I voiced concerns about the impact the bill would have on States like Connecticut who have strong mental health parity laws, strong consumer protection laws, and strong benefit mandate laws.

As a result of my continued concerns about the impact this bill would have on the residents of my State, I withheld cosponsorship of the legislation until the issues surrounding preemption could be resolved. Due to the hard work and dedication of members on both sides of the aisle, my concerns have been addressed and I can now support the legislation.

Specifically, the bill being passed today removed the broad preemption language entirely. The bill now relies on the existing preemption of State law standard currently in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Public Health Service Act, preserving States' laws relating to health insurance issuers. In many States, such issuers contract out the key insurance function of reviewing medical claims by their insureds to utilization review or medical management companies, which are licensed and regulated by the states. In fact, the legislation written by Chairman Kennedy, called the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, HIPAA, was an innovative approach to Federal health care reform that has worked well in setting a minimum standard of protections while allowing stronger State-based consumer protections. It is my understanding that the bill passed today will operate in a very similar manner.

I thank Senators Kennedy and Domenici for entering into a colloquy with me to further clarify the intent of this legislation. They have been open and willing to working with me since the HELP Committee markup occurred to address the concerns I had with this legislation. I would also like to acknowledge and thank the tremendous work and expertise of Mila Kofman, Associate Research Professor, Health Policy Institute, Georgetown University. She worked tirelessly to assist the members and staff through the complex issues of ERISA and preemption. From my own State of Connecticut, I would like to thank Kevin Lembo, Victoria Veltri, and Richard Kehoe who worked closely with my staff to ensure that Connecticut's strong mental health parity laws would be protected under this legislation.

The bill we are passing today will not only mean new Federal protections for people in self-insured ERISA plans, but it will also protect workers and families in States with insurance laws that are stronger than the Federal ones by allowing those State laws to remain in effect. It reflects months and years of hard work and compromise. It is a victory for patients who need coverage for mental health services and I am pleased to stand in support of this legislation.

I thank the chairman of the HELP Committee and the distinguished senior Senator from New Mexico and congratulate them on passage of S. 558, the Mental Health Parity Act. They and their staff have worked long hours to craft this compromise bill, and I congratulate them on this victory for individuals with mental illness throughout the country. Supporters of mental health parity, old and new, should commend the leadership of Senators Domenici and Kennedy for their years of commitment and struggle to pass Federal mental health parity legislation.

I was an original cosponsor of the original mental health parity bill in 1996, along with Senator Domenici and the late Senator Wellstone, and have been a strong supporter of efforts to strengthen that bill since it was signed into law. But, as my colleagues may know, the legislation the HELP Committee marked up last February which is now before the Senate is different from what our late colleague Paul championed for so many years. The legislation our committee marked up contained preemption language which was broader in scope than what was in Federal mental health parity bills in the past. For that reason, I filed amendments during that markup to address preemption in a way I believed would have taken a major step toward protecting State insurance laws and ensuring that we do no harm to State-based consumer protections through Federal mental health parity. At that markup, I voiced concerns about the impact the bill would have on States like Connecticut who have strong mental health parity laws, strong consumer protection laws, and strong benefit mandate laws.

As a result of my continued concerns about the impact this bill would have on the residents of my State, I withheld cosponsorship of the legislation until the issues surrounding preemption could be resolved. I am pleased to say that because of the hard work and

dedication of Members on both sides of the aisle, my concerns have been addressed and I can now support the legislation.

The bill passing the Senate today relies on the existing preemption of State law standard currently in ERISA and the Public Health Service Act, preserving States laws relating to health insurance issuers. In many States, such issuers contract out the key insurance function of reviewing medical claims by their insurers to utilization review or medical management companies, which are licensed and regulated by the States. In fact, the legislation written by the Senator from Massachusetts, called HIPAA, was an innovative approach to Federal health care reform that has worked so well in setting a minimum standard of protections while allowing stronger State-based consumer protections. Is it the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts' belief that S. 558 preserves the States' ability to regulate such companies?

Is it also the understanding of the senior Senator from New Mexico that this legislation will not only mean new Federal protections for people in self-insured ERISA plans, but it will also protect workers and families in States with insurance laws that are stronger than the Federal ones by allowing those State laws to remain in effect?

I thank the Senator and want to thank the Senator from Massachusetts for allowing my concerns about preemption and protecting State laws to be heard in the committee and for working tirelessly with me to address those concerns. The bill we are passing reflects months and years of hard work and compromise, and I am pleased to voice my strong support for S. 558. It is a victory for patients who need coverage for mental health services.

Madam President, first, I want to commend Senator Levin and Senator Warner for their leadership on this legislation. It is not news that they do a good job. They do it consistently year in and year out. This may be one of the last Defense authorization bills in which Senator Warner is involved, having made his announcement about his decision to retire from the Senate. He has another year, next year, on the Defense authorization bill. I already sense the notion of missing him here. While he is not in the Chamber this evening, I commend Senator Warner and Senator Levin for the fine work they do year in and year out on this very important issue.

I rise today to urge my colleagues to join in supporting the Specter- Leahy-Dodd amendment to restore the writ of habeas corpus for individuals held in U.S. custody. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this amendment and a cosponsor of the underlying bill from which it draws its strength, S. 185, the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act, also introduced by Senators Specter and Leahy.

For over 700 years, the legal system has recognized the importance of habeas corpus, the right of an individual to question the legality of his or her detention.

The Military Commissions Act is perhaps the most disappointing and dangerous piece of legislation passed in the more than quarter-century I have been a Member of this body. Among its many troublesome provisions, the act eliminated habeas corpus for those individuals held by our Government as enemy combatants. By stripping these individuals of the right to petition the Government, we have undermined our Nation's longstanding commitment to the rule of law and human rights. Advocates of this provision argued that stripping away this fundamental right was necessary to protect our Nation's security. That is totally false, in my view. We can both effectively prosecute terrorists and remain true to our values. In fact, if we do otherwise, I strongly suggest that we jeopardize our security.

I stand on the floor of the Senate seeking to undo what Congress did last year when it summarily stripped habeas corpus rights with the enactment of the Military Commissions Act. Were our Founding Fathers alive today, I believe they would be seriously dismayed to realize how far our country has strayed from the values enshrined in our Constitution with the adoption of this measure.

Stripping of habeas corpus rights is just one of a number of egregious provisions included in the Military Commissions Act. That is why earlier this year I introduced S. 576, the Restoring the Constitution Act, to address these errors.

In addition to restoring habeas corpus rights, S. 576 would also require the United States to live up to its Geneva Convention obligations, provide detainees access to attorneys for trials, make inadmissible trial evidence gained through torture or coercion, empower military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable, and provide for the expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionality of all of its provisions.

The Restoring the Constitution Act would undo the most damaging and unconstitutional aspects of the Military Commissions Act while providing the U.S. military a greater ability to bring our enemies to justice through military commissions.

I take a back seat to no one when it comes to defending our Nation's security. Let me be clear, I believe military commissions in very limited circumstances may be very effective in bringing combatants to justice. However, I see no reason why procedures based on the well- established, Uniform Military Code of Justice should be abandoned.

But there is a right way and a wrong way to win the fight we are in. Procedures that adhere to immediate bedrock legal principles, such as habeas corpus, abide by the Geneva Conventions, and exclude hearsay evidence or evidence obtained through torture, to name but a few, do not make us weaker. Quite the contrary. They demonstrate that no terrorist can destroy our way of life and our fundamental values that have guided our Nation for over two centuries.

During the debate on the Military Commissions Act last year, Senator Specter, Senator Leahy, and I offered an amendment that would have retained the writ of habeas corpus. Unfortunately, our amendment was rejected by this body.

On September 28, 2006, I voted against the Military Commissions Act. Sadly, I was in the minority in doing so. I was and remain deeply disappointed that the Senate passed this misguided legislation. That day was a dark day in the history of this body. On that day, we abandoned our commitment not only to human rights, but also to the rule of law, commitments that separate us from our enemies, commitments that have been fundamental to American leadership since the end of World War

You bet.