Floor Statements

Mr. President, in accordance with rule XXVI.2. of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the rules of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, as unanimously adopted by the committee on January 31, 2007.

Mr. President, let me also address my thanks to our colleague from Oklahoma. Before I discuss the Banking Committee's contribution to this important bill, I would like to take a moment to provide some thoughts on the overall bill--especially the initiatives pertaining to our Nation's homeland security. Over 5 years after the tragic events of 9/11 and almost 20 months since the tragic events of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, we continue to hear from Governors, county executives, mayors, first responders, health professionals, and emergency preparedness officials that our country as a whole remains unprepared for another manmade or natural disaster. We have heard the argument, which I support, that Congress needs to do more to support regional and local efforts to protect Americans.

Overall, I believe this bill takes a critical step forward in protecting Americans at home from manmade and natural disasters. It codifies several recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission--seminal recommendations that, nearly 3 years after being

issued, have still not been implemented by this White House or the Congress.

I support the measures in this bill designed to allocate critical resources based on concrete risk and effectiveness analysis. I also support the measure in this bill that establishes a minimum base of funding for all States. We all know how important initiatives like the State Homeland Security Grant Program and the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program are to our States and localities. While I believe those areas with higher degrees of risk from manmade and natural disasters should receive adequate resources proportionate to that risk, I also believe that all areas of our country should receive a base amount of funding that guarantees the protection of all Americans.

I am going to jump to the section of the legislation over which the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee has specific jurisdiction. The Presiding Officer is a distinguished member of the committee. He will recall just a few weeks ago we marked up the transit security bill which is now a part of this legislation.

I thank Senator Richard Shelby, my ranking member on the committee, former chairman of the committee, for his cooperation, and I thank all members of the committee. We marked up this piece of the bill now before the Senate, unanimously. It is very much a reflection of what the committee did previously in the 109th Congress to deal with transportation security, and we thought it was an important matter to raise at the outset.

My compliments to the chairman of the committee for the underlying legislation, who is responsible for the homeland security issues, and his colleague from Maine, for the tremendous work they have done on this bill, and for others who have been involved in it.

I would be remiss if I also didn't commend the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Inouye, and his ranking member, Senator Stevens, for their work, as well as Senator Reid, the majority leader, for bringing this all together in one package.

It is also important we recognize how important transit security is. The Presiding Officer and others will recall we had a hearing on this subject matter and heard from some very interesting witnesses. It is not all that common that we invite witnesses who are not U.S. citizens to come and participate in congressional hearings. But given the tragedies in Madrid and London, we thought it might be worthwhile to hear from those who manage the transit operations in those two cities to come and share with us information about those two experiences. I think their testimony was very helpful in galvanizing the importance of this issue and the attention of the committee and, we hope, our colleagues as well.

We learned in those hearings, of course, that transit attacks have unfortunately been the major source of some of the terrorist activities over the last number of years. It is no secret that worldwide terrorists have favored public transit as a target. Transit has been the single most frequent target of terrorism.

In the decade leading up to 2000, 42 percent of terrorist attacks worldwide targeted rail systems or buses, according to a study done by the Brookings Institution. In 2005 they attacked, as I mentioned, London's rail and bus system killing 52 riders and injuring almost 700 more in what has been called London's bloodiest peacetime attack. In 2004 they attacked Madrid's metro system killing 192 people and leaving 1,500 people injured.

The Banking Committee heard testimony from the leaders of these two transit systems, as I mentioned. Transit is frequently targeted because it is tremendously important to any nation's economy. Securing our transit systems and our transportation networks generally is a difficult challenge under any circumstances. Every act to increase security generally potentially limits the specific security needs of a transit agency. The bill includes grants for security equipment, evacuation drills, and, most importantly--what we heard from the witnesses, particularly from Madrid and London--worker training. Indeed, the bill requires worker training for all systems that receive security grants. The importance of worker training can be scarcely overstated. Transit workers are the first line of defense against an attack and the first to respond to an event of an attack.

Mr. O'Toole, the director of London's transit system said:

You have to invest in your staff and rely on them. You have

to invest in technology, but don't rely on it.

Finally, the bill authorizes funds for the research of new and existing security technologies and fully authorizes the funding of the Information Sharing Analysis Center, a valuable tool that provides transit agencies timely information on active threats against their systems.

Over the years we have invested heavily in aviation security. In fact, we have invested about $7.50 per aviation passenger per trip. About 1.8 million people travel using the aviation system daily in this country. 14 million people use mass transit systems every workday. We have invested about $380 million in the security of mass transit systems. That is about one penny per passenger per trip.

I am not suggesting, nor do we require, that there be an equilibrium between the security systems of both aviation and mass transit systems. But our bill does provide an authorization of $3.5 billion to increase exactly the kind of operations I have described briefly, including the training issues which are critically important.

We believe with this additional authorization, and we hope an appropriate appropriation from the responsible committees, that we will be able to provide some additional security for this critically important system of our economy.

Again, I am grateful to the members of the committee, as well as my colleagues here, for their indication of support of this effort. It is going to be very important to all of us across this country. This is not limited, obviously, to the east coast or west coast. In fact, now some of the most urbanized States in the country are Western States with mass transit systems. It is going to be very important we provide the kind of support that this provision of the bill does.

Again, my thanks to Senator Shelby, to all members of the committee who played a very constructive role in crafting this legislation, as they did in the 109th Congress and, again, to my colleague from Connecticut and my colleague from Maine for their fine work on this issue, making this a part of this bill. I urge the adoption of this section when the full bill is considered.

Again, my thanks to my colleague from Oklahoma for providing some time.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today, together with my colleague Senator Lieberman, to introduce the Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2007.

The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2007 will end an outdated legal doctrine that unfairly penalizes thousands of workers in Connecticut and across the country whose only offense is that they sometimes work from home.

Technology continues to transform the way business is conducted in America and all over the world. Telecommunications advances such as cell phones, email, the Internet, and mobile networking have not only made Americans more productive, they have also given people greater flexibility in where they can work without compromising productivity. As a result, more Americans now have the freedom to work from home or other alternative offices when their physical presence is not required at their primary place of work.

This option to telecommute offers tremendous benefits for businesses, families, and communities. It helps employers lower costs and raise worker productivity, and individuals better manage the demands of work and family. It also reduces congestion on our roads and rails, and in so doing, lowers pollution.

Despite the many benefits of telecommuting, some states continue to maintain and enforce outdated laws that unfairly penalize people who choose to work from home. New York, in particular, has been among the most aggressive.

Under its so-called ``convenience of the employer'' rule, New York requires out-of-State residents who work for an employer in New York to pay New York taxes on income earned outside the State, even if the State in which the employee is physically present also applies tax to the same income. New York only allows exceptions for cases of ``necessity,'' as opposed to ``convenience,'' and the State has determined that telecommuting falls into the latter, taxable category. While there are several States that have ``convenience of the employer'' rules, no other State applies it with the same rigor as New York.

Under this rule, if a Connecticut resident who normally works in New York--as thousands of Connecticut residents do--chooses to work from home some days, New York forces her to pay taxes for income earned on those days not only to Connecticut, the state in which she is physically present, but also to New York. This rule unfairly subjects the many workers who telecommute from their homes or other sites outside of New York to a double tax on the part of their 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 who are at risk.

Thomas Huckaby is a Tennessee-based computer programmer that telecommuted for a firm in Queens, New York. 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 its ``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. The Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal.

A similar story involves Arthur Gray, a New Hampshire resident who worked for the New York office of 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 its ``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, lack the time, money, or energy to take their case to court.

This potential for double taxation is not only unfair, it also discourages people 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 does-- 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 that deals with a small group of citizens from one small state.

Rather, this is an issue that affects workers all over the country. It will only grow more pressing as people and businesses continue to seek to take advantage of new technologies that influence 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, together with my colleague Senator Lieberman, to introduce the Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2007.

The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2007 will end an outdated legal doctrine that unfairly penalizes thousands of workers in Connecticut and across the country whose only offense is that they sometimes work from home.

Technology continues to transform the way business is conducted in America and all over the world. Telecommunications advances such as cell phones, email, the Internet, and mobile networking have not only made Americans more productive, they have also given people greater flexibility in where they can work without compromising productivity. As a result, more Americans now have the freedom to work from home or other alternative offices when their physical presence is not required at their primary place of work.

This option to telecommute offers tremendous benefits for businesses, families, and communities. It helps employers lower costs and raise worker productivity, and individuals better manage the demands of work and family. It also reduces congestion on our roads and rails, and in so doing, lowers pollution.

Despite the many benefits of telecommuting, some states continue to maintain and enforce outdated laws that unfairly penalize people who choose to work from home. New York, in particular, has been among the most aggressive.

Under its so-called ``convenience of the employer'' rule, New York requires out-of-State residents who work for an employer in New York to pay New York taxes on income earned outside the State, even if the State in which the employee is physically present also applies tax to the same income. New York only allows exceptions for cases of ``necessity,'' as opposed to ``convenience,'' and the State has determined that telecommuting falls into the latter, taxable category. While there are several States that have ``convenience of the employer'' rules, no other State applies it with the same rigor as New York.

Under this rule, if a Connecticut resident who normally works in New York--as thousands of Connecticut residents do--chooses to work from home some days, New York forces her to pay taxes for income earned on those days not only to Connecticut, the state in which she is physically present, but also to New York. This rule unfairly subjects the many workers who telecommute from their homes or other sites outside of New York to a double tax on the part of their 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 who are at risk.

Thomas Huckaby is a Tennessee-based computer programmer that telecommuted for a firm in Queens, New York. 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 its ``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. The Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal.

A similar story involves Arthur Gray, a New Hampshire resident who worked for the New York office of 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 its ``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, lack the time, money, or energy to take their case to court.

This potential for double taxation is not only unfair, it also discourages people 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 does-- 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 that deals with a small group of citizens from one small state.

Rather, this is an issue that affects workers all over the country. It will only grow more pressing as people and businesses continue to seek to take advantage of new technologies that influence 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, no one has worked harder or sacrificed more in the war on terrorism than our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines.

Regrettably, they have been tested in unprecedented ways--with too few troops in our overall forces, our soldiers are rotating in and out of Iraq for year-long stretches. By the beginning of next year, members of the 3rd Infantry Division will have spent more time in Iraq than at home in a span of five years.

On top of the physical and psychological strains caused by these deployments, our troops are contending with grave equipment shortfalls and sparse resources to restock their supplies.

Congress and the American public were already informed that two- thirds of the Army's forces in the United States are ``not ready'' for combat duty, largely due to these equipment shortfalls.

But the situation for our National Guard is far worse. In a report submitted to Congress last Thursday by the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, we learned that 88 percent of the National Guard has been classified as ``not ready'' for duty. Such a statistic seems earth-shattering to me--it should drive all of us in Congress to action immediately.

As my colleagues know, the National Guard operates under dual authorities: overseas, they become fully integrated into the U.S. Armed Forces, serving under the President in a variety of combat missions; at home, the National Guard serves under our States' governors, performing homeland security functions during local or statewide emergencies, such as storms, fires, earthquakes or civil disturbances.

For years now, however, the administration's foreign policies have actually endangered the Guard's abilities to perform either of these functions. Under orders by the administration, National Guard troops have been forced to leave their State's equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan for other troops rotating into combat theaters. Many of their military vehicles and aircraft are being worn down and destroyed in battle. But any critical equipment that may have survived is simply being transferred to other units coming into Iraq or Afghanistan.

This means that when the National Guard comes home, they are finding their stocks of equipment--ranging from humvees to night-vision goggles, generators and radios--cleaned out. So today, we face a frightening series of questions--what happens when the next Hurricane Katrina strikes? Who will help restore order? Who will help provide critical emergency response services? And what equipment will they use?

The National Guard Commission, led by former Senate Armed Services Committee Staff Director retired Marine General Arnold Punaro, lays out the problems in stark terms. Unless we address this situation immediately, we will jeopardize not only our troops' safety but our very nation's security.

That is why today I am introducing legislation to rebuild our National Guard and ensure that it can fully perform both its homeland security and national defense missions. According to the National Guard Bureau at the Pentagon, the President's budget is short $38 billion over the next five years. My bill would allocate funding according to the needs projected by National Guard Bureau Chief Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum.

Some may suggest that this is not an issue that can simply be fixed with more money. As in prior years, the Department of Defense may say that the defense industry simply just does not have adequate capacity to manufacture all of these new product orders. If that is the case, we will need to find ways to expand our nation's defense production. For that reason, my bill will also require the Defense Department to provide a plan for investing in industry to expand their manufacturing capacity.

This legislation will complement the Leahy-Bond Guard Empowerment Act of 2007, legislation that I have proudly cosponsored to elevate National Guard leadership at the Department of Defense so that it may better contribute to the formulation of key defense policies. But without the necessary resources, the National Guard will be unable to do its job. That is why my legislation is so important today.

These conclusions were further confirmed by a January 2007 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report which found that our National Guard's equipment inventories in the United States have decreased largely because of overseas operations. The GAO further found that as of November 2006, nondeployed Army National Guard forces nationwide only have 64 percent of the total amount of equipment they need.

Let me be clear about the reasons why my legislation is needed to lay out our budget for the next five years. While the administration's recent five-year budget projections have sought large increases for National Guard equipment, according to the National Guard Commission Report data, the administration and Republican-led Congresses have repeatedly failed to follow through on such requirements.

According to the Commission, funding from 1999-2005 has been reduced significantly from the amounts identified several years earlier. For example, when the administration's first five-year budget was submitted to Congress, it showed that the Army planned to fund $1.346 billion in Fiscal Year 2004

for Army National Guard procurement. But in reality, the Army Guard actually had only $578.4 million to spend that year. Similarly, the Fiscal Year 2005 budget was initially projected to be $1.625 billion for the Army National Guard. But when it came time to allocate the funding, the Administration and their Congressional allies could only come up with $660.9 million for Army National Guard procurement.

Indeed, while our troops have given their all on the battlefield, the administration and United States Congress have not held up their end of the bargain. We owe it to our troops to do all that we can to promote their wellbeing--whether providing appropriate care at our military and VA hospitals or providing the military equipment they need to complete their missions safely and effectively.

Regrettably, the sad and simple fact is that the administration has repeatedly come up short in this regard. And these failures are having devastating consequences, not only for our troops but for our Nation's very defense and homeland security.

This situation is not new. I have come to the floor to try to address lacking resources for our military's essential equipment needs from the very first year of the Iraq war. In 2003, the Army identified $322 million in shortfalls in critical health and safety gear--ranging from body armor, camelback hydration systems, and combat helmets to equipment for deactivating high-explosives--all priorities that the Rumsfeld Pentagon and Bush administration failed to provide for in their initial budgets. I offered an amendment to the Emergency Appropriations bill to resolve these problems. Unfortunately, the Bush administration opposed this legislation, and the amendment was defeated along party lines.

In 2004, we tried a different approach--requiring the Department of Defense to reimburse military personnel who bought equipment for military service in Iraq and Afghanistan that the Rumsfeld Pentagon had failed to provide. This time, despite ardent objections of Secretary Rumsfeld's Pentagon, Congress approved the legislation. And in October 2004, President Bush signed the bill into law. We approved similar legislation in 2005 to further extend this benefit as troops, their families, and their communities continued to dig into their own pockets to buy needed lifesaving equipment for use on the battlefield.

But last year, the difficulties associated with equipment shortfalls posed a far more serious problem. Working with Senators Inouye, Reed and Stevens, I offered an amendment to 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.

If Congress and the administration do not finally heed the warnings of the U.S. military's top generals, and fully fund our equipment needs, the Armed Forces' ability to respond to future challenges to America's national security--whether on the Korean Peninsula, the Middle East, or elsewhere in the world--could be harmed.

Moreover, if we do not take the findings of the independent National Guard Commission seriously, and fully address the equipment shortfalls of our Citizen Soldiers here at home, I am afraid we will further erode our states' most pressing emergency response capabilities.

For the last six years, our troops have unconditionally served in Afghanistan, battling Al Qaeda and Taliban forces. And for four years, they have bravely followed orders into Iraq, despite the administration's ill-defined objectives and faulty intelligence.

Our troops have served with characteristic honor, dedication, and skill. It is high time that we meet our commitments to them--and give them the mission-critical gear they need to get their jobs done. I strongly urge my colleagues to support my legislation.

Mr. President, no one has worked harder or sacrificed more in the war on terrorism than our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines.

Regrettably, they have been tested in unprecedented ways--with too few troops in our overall forces, our soldiers are rotating in and out of Iraq for year-long stretches. By the beginning of next year, members of the 3rd Infantry Division will have spent more time in Iraq than at home in a span of five years.

On top of the physical and psychological strains caused by these deployments, our troops are contending with grave equipment shortfalls and sparse resources to restock their supplies.

Congress and the American public were already informed that two- thirds of the Army's forces in the United States are ``not ready'' for combat duty, largely due to these equipment shortfalls.

But the situation for our National Guard is far worse. In a report submitted to Congress last Thursday by the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, we learned that 88 percent of the National Guard has been classified as ``not ready'' for duty. Such a statistic seems earth-shattering to me--it should drive all of us in Congress to action immediately.

As my colleagues know, the National Guard operates under dual authorities: overseas, they become fully integrated into the U.S. Armed Forces, serving under the President in a variety of combat missions; at home, the National Guard serves under our States' governors, performing homeland security functions during local or statewide emergencies, such as storms, fires, earthquakes or civil disturbances.

For years now, however, the administration's foreign policies have actually endangered the Guard's abilities to perform either of these functions. Under orders by the administration, National Guard troops have been forced to leave their State's equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan for other troops rotating into combat theaters. Many of their military vehicles and aircraft are being worn down and destroyed in battle. But any critical equipment that may have survived is simply being transferred to other units coming into Iraq or Afghanistan.

This means that when the National Guard comes home, they are finding their stocks of equipment--ranging from humvees to night-vision goggles, generators and radios--cleaned out. So today, we face a frightening series of questions--what happens when the next Hurricane Katrina strikes? Who will help restore order? Who will help provide critical emergency response services? And what equipment will they use?

The National Guard Commission, led by former Senate Armed Services Committee Staff Director retired Marine General Arnold Punaro, lays out the problems in stark terms. Unless we address this situation immediately, we will jeopardize not only our troops' safety but our very nation's security.

That is why today I am introducing legislation to rebuild our National Guard and ensure that it can fully perform both its homeland security and national defense missions. According to the National Guard Bureau at the Pentagon, the President's budget is short $38 billion over the next five years. My bill would allocate funding according to the needs projected by National Guard Bureau Chief Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum.

Some may suggest that this is not an issue that can simply be fixed with more money. As in prior years, the Department of Defense may say that the defense industry simply just does not have adequate capacity to manufacture all of these new product orders. If that is the case, we will need to find ways to expand our nation's defense production. For that reason, my bill will also require the Defense Department to provide a plan for investing in industry to expand their manufacturing capacity.

This legislation will complement the Leahy-Bond Guard Empowerment Act of 2007, legislation that I have proudly cosponsored to elevate National Guard leadership at the Department of Defense so that it may better contribute to the formulation of key defense policies. But without the necessary resources, the National Guard will be unable to do its job. That is why my legislation is so important today.

These conclusions were further confirmed by a January 2007 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report which found that our National Guard's equipment inventories in the United States have decreased largely because of overseas operations. The GAO further found that as of November 2006, nondeployed Army National Guard forces nationwide only have 64 percent of the total amount of equipment they need.

Let me be clear about the reasons why my legislation is needed to lay out our budget for the next five years. While the administration's recent five-year budget projections have sought large increases for National Guard equipment, according to the National Guard Commission Report data, the administration and Republican-led Congresses have repeatedly failed to follow through on such requirements.

According to the Commission, funding from 1999-2005 has been reduced significantly from the amounts identified several years earlier. For example, when the administration's first five-year budget was submitted to Congress, it showed that the Army planned to fund $1.346 billion in Fiscal Year 2004

for Army National Guard procurement. But in reality, the Army Guard actually had only $578.4 million to spend that year. Similarly, the Fiscal Year 2005 budget was initially projected to be $1.625 billion for the Army National Guard. But when it came time to allocate the funding, the Administration and their Congressional allies could only come up with $660.9 million for Army National Guard procurement.

Indeed, while our troops have given their all on the battlefield, the administration and United States Congress have not held up their end of the bargain. We owe it to our troops to do all that we can to promote their wellbeing--whether providing appropriate care at our military and VA hospitals or providing the military equipment they need to complete their missions safely and effectively.

Regrettably, the sad and simple fact is that the administration has repeatedly come up short in this regard. And these failures are having devastating consequences, not only for our troops but for our Nation's very defense and homeland security.

This situation is not new. I have come to the floor to try to address lacking resources for our military's essential equipment needs from the very first year of the Iraq war. In 2003, the Army identified $322 million in shortfalls in critical health and safety gear--ranging from body armor, camelback hydration systems, and combat helmets to equipment for deactivating high-explosives--all priorities that the Rumsfeld Pentagon and Bush administration failed to provide for in their initial budgets. I offered an amendment to the Emergency Appropriations bill to resolve these problems. Unfortunately, the Bush administration opposed this legislation, and the amendment was defeated along party lines.

In 2004, we tried a different approach--requiring the Department of Defense to reimburse military personnel who bought equipment for military service in Iraq and Afghanistan that the Rumsfeld Pentagon had failed to provide. This time, despite ardent objections of Secretary Rumsfeld's Pentagon, Congress approved the legislation. And in October 2004, President Bush signed the bill into law. We approved similar legislation in 2005 to further extend this benefit as troops, their families, and their communities continued to dig into their own pockets to buy needed lifesaving equipment for use on the battlefield.

But last year, the difficulties associated with equipment shortfalls posed a far more serious problem. Working with Senators Inouye, Reed and Stevens, I offered an amendment to 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.

If Congress and the administration do not finally heed the warnings of the U.S. military's top generals, and fully fund our equipment needs, the Armed Forces' ability to respond to future challenges to America's national security--whether on the Korean Peninsula, the Middle East, or elsewhere in the world--could be harmed.

Moreover, if we do not take the findings of the independent National Guard Commission seriously, and fully address the equipment shortfalls of our Citizen Soldiers here at home, I am afraid we will further erode our states' most pressing emergency response capabilities.

For the last six years, our troops have unconditionally served in Afghanistan, battling Al Qaeda and Taliban forces. And for four years, they have bravely followed orders into Iraq, despite the administration's ill-defined objectives and faulty intelligence.

Our troops have served with characteristic honor, dedication, and skill. It is high time that we meet our commitments to them--and give them the mission-critical gear they need to get their jobs done. I strongly urge my colleagues to support my legislation.

Mr. President, as we move forward in the coming months in the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on critical election reform hearings, I wanted to take this opportunity to re-introduce my legislation, the Voting Opportunity and Technology Enhancement Rights (VOTER) Act of 2007. I am committed to working with our new Rules Committee Chair Senator Feinstein and my other Rules Committee colleagues, and with others off the committee, to try to secure enactment of tough new election reform legislation in this Congress. This bill provides a focus and framework for that discussion.

It does not purport to address all of the key problems in election reform that have arisen since enactment in 2002 of the historic Help America Vote Act (HAVA), but it is an important start, and I am pleased that Senator Feinstein and I will be working together on comprehensive reform legislation this year. In light of the continuing barriers that American citizens

found at polling places across this Nation last November, including technological barriers, human errors, and other problems, we cannot rest on the laurels of past legislation. We must continue to strive to provide an equal opportunity for all citizens to participate in their democracy by voting and having their vote counted.

That's why today I am re-introducing this legislation. There is nothing more fundamental to the vitality 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.'' Indeed, it is the right on which all others in our democracy depend.

We still have a long way to go before we get to the point where all Americans are able to participate without obstacles in our elections, and able to participate 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.

While there are many reasons why more Americans do not vote, we learned from the debacle of the 2000 presidential elections that many citizens cannot vote and have their vote counted because they are improperly removed from registration rolls, do not have access to accessible voting systems and ballots, or lack confidence in antiquated and error-prone machines and State administrative procedures. In response to those concerns, in 2002 Congress enacted HAVA, overwhelmingly bipartisan election reform legislation. For the first time in our history, that landmark legislation established the role of the Federal Government in administering and funding Federal elections. The twin goals of the act were to make it easier to vote and harder to defraud the system.

On the day that the Senate adopted its version of HAVA, I noted that the Senate bill was a bipartisan compromise and the culmination of the hard work of a dedicated group of Senators. But I also noted that the compromise was just that--it was not everything that all of us wanted, but it was something that everyone wanted. That was equally true of the final HAVA compromise on election reform.

The 2004 and 2006 elections raised both continuing and new concerns. And some of the most important of these concerns are not addressed by HAVA. The fact that less than one-half of the eligible voting age population voted in 2006 underscores the reality that not everybody votes in America. We must do better on this front, and we can. As the 2006 elections in some states reminded us, we also must do better at bolstering Americans' confidence in the security and reliability of our election systems, while preserving critical access to people with disabilities, language minorities, and others.

Let me summarize briefly what this bill does. First, the VOTER Act provides every eligible American, regardless of where they live in the world or where they find themselves on election day, the right to cast a National Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot in Federal elections. This new national absentee ballot extends to all citizens the same right to a Federal absentee ballot that overseas and active military voters currently have. Beginning with Federal elections in 2008, every State shall provide early voting opportunities for a minimum of 15 days prior to election day, including Saturdays. Beginning in 2009, any otherwise eligible voter must be allowed to register to vote on election day and have that vote counted in Federal elections. This last provision would in itself be a major advance.

The VOTER Act also addresses many of the recurring, and new, barriers to voting that voters faced at the polls in the last two federal elections. It requires that a State count a provisional ballot for Federal office cast within the State by an otherwise eligible voter, notwithstanding the polling place where the ballot is cast.

HAVA established a uniform national right for every voter in a Federal election to receive and cast a provisional ballot. This new right was intended to ensure that no otherwise eligible voter could be turned away from the polls because of an administrative error or other challenge. But in 2004, and again in 2006, we saw this right eroded by States and applied in non-uniform ways. Some States, such as Ohio, initially interpreted HAVA to require that a voter be in their correct precinct in order to cast a Federal provisional ballot. Other States interpreted the same HAVA language to allow challenged voters to cast a provisional ballot in their county of residence. Whether or not the provisional ballot was ultimately counted turned solely on State law. This bill ensures that voters who cast a provisional ballot for Federal office will have that ballot counted in a uniform manner.

In addition, the VOTER Act requires that each State provide a minimum required number of voting systems and poll workers for each polling place on election day and during early voting, consistent with mandatory standards established by the Election Assistance Commission. This is to avoid the problem of long lines and disenfranchised voters because of too few voting systems or ballots at polling places and too few poll workers to assist voters. This requirement would become effective in January, 2008.

To ensure that all voters have an opportunity to independently verify their ballot before it is cast and counted, the VOTER Act also requires that all States provide voters a voter-verified ballot with a choice of at least four formats for verification: a paper record; an audio record; a pictorial record; and an electronic record or other means which is fully accessible to the disabled, including the blind and visually impaired.

HAVA already requires that all voting systems provide voters an opportunity to verify their ballot before it is cast and counted. HAVA also requires that all systems produce a permanent paper record for audit purposes. However, it does not spell out how that verification is to be achieved to ensure security and independence of the voter's choice.

In the last few years, many have called on Congress to require a voter-verified paper ballot. And I understand what is behind that impulse. Even so, unless voter verification schemes are carefully crafted, paper-only processes can be less accurate, printer jams can result in more destroyed ballots, and they can inherently discriminate against the disabled, particularly the blind and visually-impaired. HAVA already requires that all voters, regardless of disability, be able to verify their ballots. With current and developing technology-- and with new approaches being developed which will require paper ballots which are then convertible into formats for verification that are accessible to persons with disabilities and language minorities--I am hopeful that as we move forward we will be able to work out an approach on which all sides can agree.

I continue to believe it is important to preserve the anti- discrimination requirements in current law, by ensuring that appropriate verification alternatives are offered to those who need them. I know my colleagues have various proposals on this issue to bring before the Committee for its consideration, either separately or as part of more comprehensive reform efforts, and we should examine those proposals carefully. That process has already begun with the Committee's hearing last month which focused on problems with electronic voting systems, including those currently before the court in the contested election for the 13th Congressional District in Sarasota County, Florida.

The VOTER Act also addresses the continuing problem of minority disenfranchisement through last-minute purges of voter registration lists by requiring States to provide public notice of any such purges not later than 45 days before a Federal election.

To expedite the studies called for under HAVA for establishing election day as a Federal holiday, the VOTER Act requires the EAC to complete its study and issue recommendations within 6 months of enactment and earmarks funds within the EAC budget solely for this purpose.

It also includes amendments to HAVA that build on the existing voting system requirements to ensure that all voting systems, including punch cards

and central count optical scan machines, provide voters with actual notice of over-votes. Also, beginning in 2009, States must allow for voter registration through the Internet. The bill also includes provisions to ensure both the security and uniform treatment of voter registration applications by requiring that all voters sign an affidavit attesting to both their citizenship and age, in lieu of the HAVA requirements for a check-off box alone, effective in 2009.

HAVA requires that voter registration forms include questions regarding citizenship and age with check-off boxes that applicants use to indicate whether or not they meet eligibility requirements. States are further required to contact any applicant who does not fill in the boxes in order to complete the form. However, in the 2004 and 2006 elections, States implemented this requirement in widely varying ways, resulting in non-uniform treatment of voters in Federal elections. In some cases, States refused to process the form and failed to contact the voter. In other States, voters who had submitted incomplete forms were asked to complete those forms at the polling place. While the twin purposes of HAVA were to make it easier to vote and harder to defraud the system, as implemented this requirement achieves neither purpose. This requirement further resulted in disenfranchising voters who failed to check a box but nonetheless signed an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, attesting to both their citizenship and age. With the implementation of statewide voter registration lists, the check-off box requirement is unnecessary and burdensome to both voters and election administrators.

To ensure that the implementation of the voter identification requirements in HAVA do not make it harder to vote, the VOTER Act expands the forms of identification that can be used to establish identity for first-time voters who submit their voter registration by mail to include an affidavit executed by the voter attesting to his or her identity, generally subject to penalties for perjury under State law.

The VOTER Act also begins to respond to concerns first raised in the 2000 Presidential election in Florida, and echoed again in the 2004 and 2006 elections, regarding the appearance of impartiality by State election officials who were otherwise active in Federal campaigns. The bill imposes new accountability and transparency requirements on States, beginning in 2008, including a public notice requirement of any changes in State law affecting the administration of elections, such as changes in polling places and actions denying access to polling place observers. Some have urged going beyond this, including by banning state election officials from engaging in political activity in races which they oversee; the committee should consider this approach carefully.

To ensure the independence of the Election Assistance Commission, and the timely issuance of guidance and standards, the bill provides the agency with independent budget authority and the authority to issue mandatory standards to implement the new requirements. Finally, in recognition of the inherent role of the States in the administration of Federal elections, the VOTER Act provides additional Federal funds for the State requirement grants under HAVA to implement the new requirements.

This measure does not pretend to be exhaustive, and I know there are other important reform ideas that will be considered by the committee, including measures to penalize deceptive voter intimidation practices, to impose additional voting systems testing, to improve poll worker training, to ease registration for new voters, and others. I welcome a full discussion of all of these issues.

While Congress accomplished much with the passage of the Help America Vote Act following the debacle of the 2000 Presidential election, 5 years later voters still face some of the same barriers to voting that HAVA promised to remove. As we move forward on election reform this year, let us ensure that every eligible American voter has an equal opportunity to cast a vote and have that vote counted in Federal elections.

I invite my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of this measure, and I ask unanimous consent that a brief section-by-section analysis of this measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, March 1, marks the 46th Anniversary of the Peace Corps. Never in our history has it been more critical that the Peace Corps succeed in its mission to ``promote world peace and friendship.'' As we all know, the Peace Corps seeks to advance both a better understanding of Americans and better understanding by Americans; and these goals are especially central if we want to effectively counter the spread of extremist ideology to disaffected people around the world, people who, after all, know as little of us as we know of them.

Since 1961, nearly 190,000 Peace Corps volunteers have served our Nation as citizen diplomats. For the last 45 years, by living and working side-by-side with people from 139 nations, these volunteers have represented the very best of American ideals: working to improve the human condition, and overcoming barriers of culture, language and religion, through patience, mutual respect, and partnership.

The Peace Corps is an absolutely crucial instrument in advancing America's longer term foreign policy goals. And so today I am proud to introduce the Peace Corps Volunteer Empowerment Act that is designed to make the Peace Corps even more relevant to the dynamic world of the 21st Century. I am also very pleased to announce that another returned Peace Corps volunteer, Congressman Sam Farr will shortly introduce a companion bill in the House so that both bodies can begin working to pass this very important legislation.

The bill will provide seed monies for active Peace Corps volunteers for demonstration projects at their specific in-country sites. It authorizes $10 million in additional annual appropriations to be distributed by the Peace Corps as grants to returned Peace Corps volunteers interested in undertaking ``third goal'' projects in their communities. The bill will also authorize active Peace Corps volunteers to accept, under certain carefully defined circumstances, private donations to support their development projects.

For any organization to thrive, managers and leaders must have access to first-hand knowledge and perspectives of those working on the front lines. And so, this bill will establish mechanisms for more volunteer input into Peace Corps operations, including staffing decisions, site selection, language training and country programs. This bill will also explicitly protect certain rights of Peace Corps volunteers with respect to termination of service and whistleblower protection.

We must bring the Peace Corps into the digital age. To that end, this bill will provide volunteers with better means of communication by establishing websites and email links for use by volunteers in-country.

Inadequate funding and internal structural roadblocks have unfortunately resulted in an unfulfilled Presidential pledge to double the size of the Peace Corps by 2007. Despite a large increase in volunteers signing up for the Peace Corps immediately after September 11, the Congressional Research Service reports that the number of Peace Corps volunteers actually declined in 2006. It is crucial that we work to reverse this troubling trend. That is why this bill authorizes active recruitment from the 185,000 returned Peace Corps volunteer community for second tours as volunteers and as participants in third goal activities in the United States.

This bill will also remove certain medical, healthcare and other impediments that discourage older individuals from becoming Peace Corps volunteers. It will create more transparency in the medical screening and appeals process, and require reports on costs associated with extending post-service health coverage from 1 month to 6 months.

Finally, and perhaps most crucially, my bill includes annual authorizations for Fiscal Years 2008 to 2011, so that we can provide the means by which the

Peace Corps can double the number of volunteers to 15,000, by 2011.

In all the controversies of the past 5 years, all the vagaries of strategy and tactics and plans and counter plans, there's one policy that guarantees success: sending our best young men and women into the world to make America known. So, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill, to modernize, strengthen and enlarge the Peace Corps. On the 46th Anniversary of this great program, let us act swiftly to ensure that at the very least, the Peace Corps will continue to thrive for an additional 46 years.

Mr. President, as we move forward in the coming months in the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on critical election reform hearings, I wanted to take this opportunity to re-introduce my legislation, the Voting Opportunity and Technology Enhancement Rights (VOTER) Act of 2007. I am committed to working with our new Rules Committee Chair Senator Feinstein and my other Rules Committee colleagues, and with others off the committee, to try to secure enactment of tough new election reform legislation in this Congress. This bill provides a focus and framework for that discussion.

It does not purport to address all of the key problems in election reform that have arisen since enactment in 2002 of the historic Help America Vote Act (HAVA), but it is an important start, and I am pleased that Senator Feinstein and I will be working together on comprehensive reform legislation this year. In light of the continuing barriers that American citizens

found at polling places across this Nation last November, including technological barriers, human errors, and other problems, we cannot rest on the laurels of past legislation. We must continue to strive to provide an equal opportunity for all citizens to participate in their democracy by voting and having their vote counted.

That's why today I am re-introducing this legislation. There is nothing more fundamental to the vitality 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.'' Indeed, it is the right on which all others in our democracy depend.

We still have a long way to go before we get to the point where all Americans are able to participate without obstacles in our elections, and able to participate 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.

While there are many reasons why more Americans do not vote, we learned from the debacle of the 2000 presidential elections that many citizens cannot vote and have their vote counted because they are improperly removed from registration rolls, do not have access to accessible voting systems and ballots, or lack confidence in antiquated and error-prone machines and State administrative procedures. In response to those concerns, in 2002 Congress enacted HAVA, overwhelmingly bipartisan election reform legislation. For the first time in our history, that landmark legislation established the role of the Federal Government in administering and funding Federal elections. The twin goals of the act were to make it easier to vote and harder to defraud the system.

On the day that the Senate adopted its version of HAVA, I noted that the Senate bill was a bipartisan compromise and the culmination of the hard work of a dedicated group of Senators. But I also noted that the compromise was just that--it was not everything that all of us wanted, but it was something that everyone wanted. That was equally true of the final HAVA compromise on election reform.

The 2004 and 2006 elections raised both continuing and new concerns. And some of the most important of these concerns are not addressed by HAVA. The fact that less than one-half of the eligible voting age population voted in 2006 underscores the reality that not everybody votes in America. We must do better on this front, and we can. As the 2006 elections in some states reminded us, we also must do better at bolstering Americans' confidence in the security and reliability of our election systems, while preserving critical access to people with disabilities, language minorities, and others.

Let me summarize briefly what this bill does. First, the VOTER Act provides every eligible American, regardless of where they live in the world or where they find themselves on election day, the right to cast a National Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot in Federal elections. This new national absentee ballot extends to all citizens the same right to a Federal absentee ballot that overseas and active military voters currently have. Beginning with Federal elections in 2008, every State shall provide early voting opportunities for a minimum of 15 days prior to election day, including Saturdays. Beginning in 2009, any otherwise eligible voter must be allowed to register to vote on election day and have that vote counted in Federal elections. This last provision would in itself be a major advance.

The VOTER Act also addresses many of the recurring, and new, barriers to voting that voters faced at the polls in the last two federal elections. It requires that a State count a provisional ballot for Federal office cast within the State by an otherwise eligible voter, notwithstanding the polling place where the ballot is cast.

HAVA established a uniform national right for every voter in a Federal election to receive and cast a provisional ballot. This new right was intended to ensure that no otherwise eligible voter could be turned away from the polls because of an administrative error or other challenge. But in 2004, and again in 2006, we saw this right eroded by States and applied in non-uniform ways. Some States, such as Ohio, initially interpreted HAVA to require that a voter be in their correct precinct in order to cast a Federal provisional ballot. Other States interpreted the same HAVA language to allow challenged voters to cast a provisional ballot in their county of residence. Whether or not the provisional ballot was ultimately counted turned solely on State law. This bill ensures that voters who cast a provisional ballot for Federal office will have that ballot counted in a uniform manner.

In addition, the VOTER Act requires that each State provide a minimum required number of voting systems and poll workers for each polling place on election day and during early voting, consistent with mandatory standards established by the Election Assistance Commission. This is to avoid the problem of long lines and disenfranchised voters because of too few voting systems or ballots at polling places and too few poll workers to assist voters. This requirement would become effective in January, 2008.

To ensure that all voters have an opportunity to independently verify their ballot before it is cast and counted, the VOTER Act also requires that all States provide voters a voter-verified ballot with a choice of at least four formats for verification: a paper record; an audio record; a pictorial record; and an electronic record or other means which is fully accessible to the disabled, including the blind and visually impaired.

HAVA already requires that all voting systems provide voters an opportunity to verify their ballot before it is cast and counted. HAVA also requires that all systems produce a permanent paper record for audit purposes. However, it does not spell out how that verification is to be achieved to ensure security and independence of the voter's choice.

In the last few years, many have called on Congress to require a voter-verified paper ballot. And I understand what is behind that impulse. Even so, unless voter verification schemes are carefully crafted, paper-only processes can be less accurate, printer jams can result in more destroyed ballots, and they can inherently discriminate against the disabled, particularly the blind and visually-impaired. HAVA already requires that all voters, regardless of disability, be able to verify their ballots. With current and developing technology-- and with new approaches being developed which will require paper ballots which are then convertible into formats for verification that are accessible to persons with disabilities and language minorities--I am hopeful that as we move forward we will be able to work out an approach on which all sides can agree.

I continue to believe it is important to preserve the anti- discrimination requirements in current law, by ensuring that appropriate verification alternatives are offered to those who need them. I know my colleagues have various proposals on this issue to bring before the Committee for its consideration, either separately or as part of more comprehensive reform efforts, and we should examine those proposals carefully. That process has already begun with the Committee's hearing last month which focused on problems with electronic voting systems, including those currently before the court in the contested election for the 13th Congressional District in Sarasota County, Florida.

The VOTER Act also addresses the continuing problem of minority disenfranchisement through last-minute purges of voter registration lists by requiring States to provide public notice of any such purges not later than 45 days before a Federal election.

To expedite the studies called for under HAVA for establishing election day as a Federal holiday, the VOTER Act requires the EAC to complete its study and issue recommendations within 6 months of enactment and earmarks funds within the EAC budget solely for this purpose.

It also includes amendments to HAVA that build on the existing voting system requirements to ensure that all voting systems, including punch cards

and central count optical scan machines, provide voters with actual notice of over-votes. Also, beginning in 2009, States must allow for voter registration through the Internet. The bill also includes provisions to ensure both the security and uniform treatment of voter registration applications by requiring that all voters sign an affidavit attesting to both their citizenship and age, in lieu of the HAVA requirements for a check-off box alone, effective in 2009.

HAVA requires that voter registration forms include questions regarding citizenship and age with check-off boxes that applicants use to indicate whether or not they meet eligibility requirements. States are further required to contact any applicant who does not fill in the boxes in order to complete the form. However, in the 2004 and 2006 elections, States implemented this requirement in widely varying ways, resulting in non-uniform treatment of voters in Federal elections. In some cases, States refused to process the form and failed to contact the voter. In other States, voters who had submitted incomplete forms were asked to complete those forms at the polling place. While the twin purposes of HAVA were to make it easier to vote and harder to defraud the system, as implemented this requirement achieves neither purpose. This requirement further resulted in disenfranchising voters who failed to check a box but nonetheless signed an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, attesting to both their citizenship and age. With the implementation of statewide voter registration lists, the check-off box requirement is unnecessary and burdensome to both voters and election administrators.

To ensure that the implementation of the voter identification requirements in HAVA do not make it harder to vote, the VOTER Act expands the forms of identification that can be used to establish identity for first-time voters who submit their voter registration by mail to include an affidavit executed by the voter attesting to his or her identity, generally subject to penalties for perjury under State law.

The VOTER Act also begins to respond to concerns first raised in the 2000 Presidential election in Florida, and echoed again in the 2004 and 2006 elections, regarding the appearance of impartiality by State election officials who were otherwise active in Federal campaigns. The bill imposes new accountability and transparency requirements on States, beginning in 2008, including a public notice requirement of any changes in State law affecting the administration of elections, such as changes in polling places and actions denying access to polling place observers. Some have urged going beyond this, including by banning state election officials from engaging in political activity in races which they oversee; the committee should consider this approach carefully.

To ensure the independence of the Election Assistance Commission, and the timely issuance of guidance and standards, the bill provides the agency with independent budget authority and the authority to issue mandatory standards to implement the new requirements. Finally, in recognition of the inherent role of the States in the administration of Federal elections, the VOTER Act provides additional Federal funds for the State requirement grants under HAVA to implement the new requirements.

This measure does not pretend to be exhaustive, and I know there are other important reform ideas that will be considered by the committee, including measures to penalize deceptive voter intimidation practices, to impose additional voting systems testing, to improve poll worker training, to ease registration for new voters, and others. I welcome a full discussion of all of these issues.

While Congress accomplished much with the passage of the Help America Vote Act following the debacle of the 2000 Presidential election, 5 years later voters still face some of the same barriers to voting that HAVA promised to remove. As we move forward on election reform this year, let us ensure that every eligible American voter has an equal opportunity to cast a vote and have that vote counted in Federal elections.

I invite my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of this measure, and I ask unanimous consent that a brief section-by-section analysis of this measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, March 1, marks the 46th Anniversary of the Peace Corps. Never in our history has it been more critical that the Peace Corps succeed in its mission to ``promote world peace and friendship.'' As we all know, the Peace Corps seeks to advance both a better understanding of Americans and better understanding by Americans; and these goals are especially central if we want to effectively counter the spread of extremist ideology to disaffected people around the world, people who, after all, know as little of us as we know of them.

Since 1961, nearly 190,000 Peace Corps volunteers have served our Nation as citizen diplomats. For the last 45 years, by living and working side-by-side with people from 139 nations, these volunteers have represented the very best of American ideals: working to improve the human condition, and overcoming barriers of culture, language and religion, through patience, mutual respect, and partnership.

The Peace Corps is an absolutely crucial instrument in advancing America's longer term foreign policy goals. And so today I am proud to introduce the Peace Corps Volunteer Empowerment Act that is designed to make the Peace Corps even more relevant to the dynamic world of the 21st Century. I am also very pleased to announce that another returned Peace Corps volunteer, Congressman Sam Farr will shortly introduce a companion bill in the House so that both bodies can begin working to pass this very important legislation.

The bill will provide seed monies for active Peace Corps volunteers for demonstration projects at their specific in-country sites. It authorizes $10 million in additional annual appropriations to be distributed by the Peace Corps as grants to returned Peace Corps volunteers interested in undertaking ``third goal'' projects in their communities. The bill will also authorize active Peace Corps volunteers to accept, under certain carefully defined circumstances, private donations to support their development projects.

For any organization to thrive, managers and leaders must have access to first-hand knowledge and perspectives of those working on the front lines. And so, this bill will establish mechanisms for more volunteer input into Peace Corps operations, including staffing decisions, site selection, language training and country programs. This bill will also explicitly protect certain rights of Peace Corps volunteers with respect to termination of service and whistleblower protection.

We must bring the Peace Corps into the digital age. To that end, this bill will provide volunteers with better means of communication by establishing websites and email links for use by volunteers in-country.

Inadequate funding and internal structural roadblocks have unfortunately resulted in an unfulfilled Presidential pledge to double the size of the Peace Corps by 2007. Despite a large increase in volunteers signing up for the Peace Corps immediately after September 11, the Congressional Research Service reports that the number of Peace Corps volunteers actually declined in 2006. It is crucial that we work to reverse this troubling trend. That is why this bill authorizes active recruitment from the 185,000 returned Peace Corps volunteer community for second tours as volunteers and as participants in third goal activities in the United States.

This bill will also remove certain medical, healthcare and other impediments that discourage older individuals from becoming Peace Corps volunteers. It will create more transparency in the medical screening and appeals process, and require reports on costs associated with extending post-service health coverage from 1 month to 6 months.

Finally, and perhaps most crucially, my bill includes annual authorizations for Fiscal Years 2008 to 2011, so that we can provide the means by which the

Peace Corps can double the number of volunteers to 15,000, by 2011.

In all the controversies of the past 5 years, all the vagaries of strategy and tactics and plans and counter plans, there's one policy that guarantees success: sending our best young men and women into the world to make America known. So, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill, to modernize, strengthen and enlarge the Peace Corps. On the 46th Anniversary of this great program, let us act swiftly to ensure that at the very least, the Peace Corps will continue to thrive for an additional 46 years.

Madam President, this past week the President of the United States warned of the ``disastrous consequences'' and ``chaos'' which could occur in Iraq if we fail in that country. Once again the President's statements demonstrate how out of touch he is on this issue.

Iraq already is in a state of chaos. The American people know it and the Iraqi people know it, most painfully. Unfortunately, we already are dealing with the ``disastrous consequences'' of 4 years of this administration's failed policy in Iraq.

This chaos became inevitable the day the President invaded Iraq without a viable plan for winning the peace. And this chaos has been further compounded by 4 years of consistent failure by this administration.

The President's plan to surge forces into Iraq is no different from previous surges, including Operation Together Forward, which only resulted in more violence. Despite all of our military strength, the United States cannot through force alone instill Iraqis with democratic values or end the sectarian civil war in that country.

We have before us this afternoon a very direct, succinct nonbinding resolution. The language is unequivocal in expressing opposition to the President's surge. I am strongly opposed to the ``surge'' and will therefore vote in a favor of this straightforward, simple resolution expressing that opposition.

Surely our colleagues on the other side of the aisle can vote on a simple resolution stating whether they support the President's surge.

This is a vote on whether you support the President's Iraq war policy, without caveat or qualifier. And if this Chamber is ever allowed to get to a vote on this measure, a majority of this body will vote aye and therefore be publicly on record against the President's proposed policy to put even more of our soldiers in harm's way in Iraq's civil war.

If Congress had wanted to express its opinion on this important issue, this vote should have been among the first steps taken back in January, immediately after the President announced his intention to escalate our military involvement in Iraq.

Nearly 5 weeks have passed since that announcement. In those 5 weeks we have heard from experts across the political spectrum explain why the surge won't work and explain that there is no military solution to the conflict in Iraq.

Yesterday, the House of Representatives sent a message to the President and to the American people with their vote on this resolution opposing the surge. And yet the President has unwaveringly declared that he will stay the course. It's full speed ahead in the words of Vice-President Cheney.

We all know that and up-or-down vote on this resolution is not enough. Yes, I oppose the President's proposed surge. But I oppose much more than that--I oppose the President's overall strategy in Iraq.

So let's be realistic and understand that our pronouncing ourselves on the measure before us today will do nothing to force the President to change course in Iraq.

It will do nothing to get our troops out of harms way.

It will do nothing to improve the lives of Iraqi civilians.

American combat brigades are being asked to carry out a mission that is unachievable; namely, to bring an end to Iraq's civil war through military force.

Only a political solution can salvage Iraq.

Regrettably, we are in the fourth year of this conflict, and for some reason, this administration is still failing our troops. The President's proposed surge tactic will send thousands of American G.I.s into a battle with inadequate protection and training and on a mission which they will be unable to achieve.

Last month, Senator Kennedy and I sent a letter to Defense Secretary Gates demanding that he address reported shortfalls among two combat brigades being deployed as part of the President's proposed surge without the most up-to-date armored vehicles, vehicles that have been designed to withstand explosions and provide significantly better protection for our troops.

Just this week, media accounts of a classified Defense Department inspector general's report cited significant problems in outfitting our forces with a variety of vehicle armor to protect troops from IEDS.

How much more of this can we allow to stand? How many more of these reports should we tolerate until we say enough is enough?

The only way to reverse course in Iraq is to demonstrate to the President that it's no longer business as usual--that this Congress will not continue to support funding for the President's failed strategy, which is needlessly harming our troops and weakening our national security.

It is essential that we find a better use for the funds being allocated for the President's surge. We need to redirect U.S. funds to immediately begin to redeploy combat forces within and out of Iraq, to focus on counterterrorism and training of Iraqis, to put pressure on all of Iraq's leaders--not just the Maliki government--to seek and reach necessary and painful political compromises, and to ensure the security and political rights of all Iraqis.

We must also acknowledge how broken our own military is as a result of the Iraq war and redirect a portion of the funds proposed for Iraq to restore our own military's readiness.

It is time that this Congress moves beyond debating non-binding resolutions about the surge. It is time for the Congress to debate how much longer and under what circumstances we are prepared to support funding for a continued U.S. presence in Iraq.

That is the debate the American people want to hear, that is the debate our courageous and dedicated troops deserve.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with my colleague Senator Hatch to introduce legislation to protect the most vulnerable members of our society: newborn infants. Many people know the joy of parenthood. These parents know the sense of worry about whether their kids are doing well, are feeling well, and are safe. Nothing is of greater importance than the health and well-being of our children.

Thanks to incredible advances in medical technology, it is now possible to test newborns for more than 50 genetic and metabolic disorders. Many of these disorders, if undetected, would lead to severe disability or death. However, babies that are properly diagnosed and treated can, in many cases, go on to live healthy lives. So newborn screening can literally save lives.

Frighteningly, the disorders that newborn screening tests for can come without warning. For most of these disorders, there is no medical history of the condition in the family and no way to predict the health of a baby based on the health of the parents. Although the disorders that are tested for are quite rare, there is a chance that any one newborn will be affected. In that sense, this is an issue that has a direct impact on the lives of all families.

Fortunately, some screening has become common practice in every state. Each year, over four million infants have blood taken from their heel after birth to detect these disorders that could threaten their life and long-term health. As a result, about one in 4,000 babies is diagnosed with one of these disorders. That means that newborn screening could protect the health or save the life of approximately 1,000 newborns each year. That is 1,000 tragedies that can be averted families that can know the joy of a new infant rather than absolute heartbreak.

In 2004, the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) completed a report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services which recommended that every baby born in the U.S. be screened for twenty-nine disorders, including certain metabolic conditions and hearing deficiency. Unfortunately, as of February 2007, only 11 States and the District of Columbia require infants to be screened for all twenty-nine of these recommended disorders. If diagnosed early, all of these conditions can be successfully managed or treated to prevent or mitigate severe and often lifelong health problems.

For every baby saved, another two are estimated to be born with potentially detectable disorders that go undetected because they are not screened. These infants and their families face the prospect of disability or death from a preventable disorder. The survival of a newborn may very well come down to the state in which it is born, because not all states test for every detectable disorder.

The Government Accountability Office, GAO, released a report in 2003 highlighting the need for this legislation. According to the report, most states do not educate parents and health care providers about the availability of tests beyond what is mandated by a State. States also reported that they do not have the resources to purchase the technology and train the staff needed to expand newborn screening programs. Finally, even when States do detect an abnormal screening result, the majority do not inform parents directly.

The legislation that we are introducing today will give states an additional helping hand toward meeting the advisory's committee's recommendation by providing $25 million for states to expand and improve their newborn screening programs. In order to access these resources, states will be required to commit to screening for all 29 disorders.

Our legislation will also authorize $15 million for two types of grants. The first seeks to address the lack of information available to health care professionals and parents about newborn screening. Every parent should have the knowledge necessary to protect their child. The tragedy of a newborn's death is only compounded by the frustration of learning that the death was preventable. This bill authorizes grants to provide education and training to health care professionals, state laboratory personnel, families and consumer advocates.

The second type of grant will support States in providing follow-up care for those children diagnosed by a disorder detected through newborn screening. While these families are the fortunate ones, in many cases they are still faced with the prospect of extended and complex treatment and major lifestyle changes. We need to remember that care does not stop at diagnosis.

To ensure the quality of laboratories involved in newborn screening, so that tests are as accurate as possible and infants receive appropriate care, the legislation authorizes $5 million for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, to carry out a number of functions such as quality assurance for newborn screening tests, performance evaluation services, and technical assistance and technology transfer to newborn screening labs.

In the event of a public health emergency, such as Hurricane Katrina, newborn screening may seem like a low priority. However, if babies aren't tested and, when necessary, treated within the first few days of life, they may suffer irreparable harm or even death. In the wake of a public health crisis, contingency planning for newborn screening is essential. Our legislation requires the CDC, in consultation with the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA, to develop a national contingency plan for newborn screening in the event of a public health emergency within 180 days of enactment of the bill.

Finally, the bill directs the CDC, in consultation with HRSA, to establish a national surveillance program for newborn screening, and authorizes $15 million for that purpose. Such a program will help us conduct research to better understand these rare disorders, and will hopefully lead us toward more effective treatments and cures.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation so that every newborn child will have the best possible opportunity that America can offer to live a long, healthy and happy life. I look forward to working with the Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, Senator Kennedy, and Ranking Member Enzi to advance this legislation as early as possible.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with my colleague Senator Hatch to introduce legislation to protect the most vulnerable members of our society: newborn infants. Many people know the joy of parenthood. These parents know the sense of worry about whether their kids are doing well, are feeling well, and are safe. Nothing is of greater importance than the health and well-being of our children.

Thanks to incredible advances in medical technology, it is now possible to test newborns for more than 50 genetic and metabolic disorders. Many of these disorders, if undetected, would lead to severe disability or death. However, babies that are properly diagnosed and treated can, in many cases, go on to live healthy lives. So newborn screening can literally save lives.

Frighteningly, the disorders that newborn screening tests for can come without warning. For most of these disorders, there is no medical history of the condition in the family and no way to predict the health of a baby based on the health of the parents. Although the disorders that are tested for are quite rare, there is a chance that any one newborn will be affected. In that sense, this is an issue that has a direct impact on the lives of all families.

Fortunately, some screening has become common practice in every state. Each year, over four million infants have blood taken from their heel after birth to detect these disorders that could threaten their life and long-term health. As a result, about one in 4,000 babies is diagnosed with one of these disorders. That means that newborn screening could protect the health or save the life of approximately 1,000 newborns each year. That is 1,000 tragedies that can be averted families that can know the joy of a new infant rather than absolute heartbreak.

In 2004, the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) completed a report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services which recommended that every baby born in the U.S. be screened for twenty-nine disorders, including certain metabolic conditions and hearing deficiency. Unfortunately, as of February 2007, only 11 States and the District of Columbia require infants to be screened for all twenty-nine of these recommended disorders. If diagnosed early, all of these conditions can be successfully managed or treated to prevent or mitigate severe and often lifelong health problems.

For every baby saved, another two are estimated to be born with potentially detectable disorders that go undetected because they are not screened. These infants and their families face the prospect of disability or death from a preventable disorder. The survival of a newborn may very well come down to the state in which it is born, because not all states test for every detectable disorder.

The Government Accountability Office, GAO, released a report in 2003 highlighting the need for this legislation. According to the report, most states do not educate parents and health care providers about the availability of tests beyond what is mandated by a State. States also reported that they do not have the resources to purchase the technology and train the staff needed to expand newborn screening programs. Finally, even when States do detect an abnormal screening result, the majority do not inform parents directly.

The legislation that we are introducing today will give states an additional helping hand toward meeting the advisory's committee's recommendation by providing $25 million for states to expand and improve their newborn screening programs. In order to access these resources, states will be required to commit to screening for all 29 disorders.

Our legislation will also authorize $15 million for two types of grants. The first seeks to address the lack of information available to health care professionals and parents about newborn screening. Every parent should have the knowledge necessary to protect their child. The tragedy of a newborn's death is only compounded by the frustration of learning that the death was preventable. This bill authorizes grants to provide education and training to health care professionals, state laboratory personnel, families and consumer advocates.

The second type of grant will support States in providing follow-up care for those children diagnosed by a disorder detected through newborn screening. While these families are the fortunate ones, in many cases they are still faced with the prospect of extended and complex treatment and major lifestyle changes. We need to remember that care does not stop at diagnosis.

To ensure the quality of laboratories involved in newborn screening, so that tests are as accurate as possible and infants receive appropriate care, the legislation authorizes $5 million for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, to carry out a number of functions such as quality assurance for newborn screening tests, performance evaluation services, and technical assistance and technology transfer to newborn screening labs.

In the event of a public health emergency, such as Hurricane Katrina, newborn screening may seem like a low priority. However, if babies aren't tested and, when necessary, treated within the first few days of life, they may suffer irreparable harm or even death. In the wake of a public health crisis, contingency planning for newborn screening is essential. Our legislation requires the CDC, in consultation with the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA, to develop a national contingency plan for newborn screening in the event of a public health emergency within 180 days of enactment of the bill.

Finally, the bill directs the CDC, in consultation with HRSA, to establish a national surveillance program for newborn screening, and authorizes $15 million for that purpose. Such a program will help us conduct research to better understand these rare disorders, and will hopefully lead us toward more effective treatments and cures.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation so that every newborn child will have the best possible opportunity that America can offer to live a long, healthy and happy life. I look forward to working with the Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, Senator Kennedy, and Ranking Member Enzi to advance this legislation as early as possible.

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

Mr. President, today, Senator Smith and I are introducing the School-Based Health Clinic Establishment Act of 2007. This legislation will assist in the operation of school-based health clinics (SBHCs) which provide comprehensive and accessible primary health care services to medically underserved youth.

Why is this legislation needed? Let's look at the facts. We have more than eight million children in this country who have no health insurance. According to recent data released by the Department of Health and Human Services, between 2003-2005, the percentage of high school students who reported smoking cigarettes was around 23 percent. In 2005, 30 percent of students in grades 11-12 reported binge drinking, which is five or more alcoholic drinks in a row. Twenty-two percent of students in grades 11 and 12 reported using marijuana in the past month.

In addition, the same Department of Health and Human Services report found that the United States spends more on health per capita than any other country. The report, ``Health, United States 2006,'' specifically stated that ``much of this spending is for care that controls or reduces the impact of chronic diseases and conditions affecting an aging population.'' Fewer dollars are spent on preventative care for our children.

Another fact I would like to bring to your attention is one found in a document released today by the United Nations Children's Fund. The U.N. Children's Fund report found that the United States ranks last in child health and safety, with the highest rates of relative child poverty and teenage obesity.''

The points I have just made should not only shock us, but should be a wake-up call to each member of this body and to the American people that we need to take action and we need to take it now.

With the introduction of the School-Based Health Clinic Establishment Act of 2007, Senator Smith and I are seeking to change the data I have outlined. School-based health clinics, where available, have a demonstrated record of improving the health care of our nation's youth. A study by Johns Hopkins University found that SBHCs reduced inappropriate emergency room use and increased primary care utilization, which resulted in fewer hospitalizations for those who used SBHCs. SBHCs also save money. For example, the Emory University School of Public Health attributed a reduction in Medicaid expenditures related to inpatient care and emergency department registration to the use of SBHCs.

In Connecticut, we have 73 school-based health clinics. The SBHCs have provided health care to many elementary, middle, and high school students who would not have access to care if SBHCs did not exist. The Connecticut clinics provide an array of services such as comprehensive physical and mental health assessments, dental care, asthma treatment, and conflict resolution.

The bill we are introducing today will help enable school-based health clinics to continue providing these much needed services. Although these clinics function totally in accordance with state laws and regulations, the federal government needs to provide funding so these clinics can continue to be a key component of our health care delivery system.

This year, we will be working on the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The program was created to provide health care to millions of children who were previously uninsured. SCHIP is an outstanding program. I believe the ``School- Based Health Clinic Establishment Act of 2007'' would be a good complement to SCHIP.

The School-Based Health Clinic Establishment Act of 2007 is an important step in making sure that the next time the United Nations Children's Fund issues their rankings on children's quality of life, that the United States is no longer listed in last place. I look forward to working with Sen. Smith and my colleagues to see that this legislation is not only passed by this body soon, but that it is signed into law.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007--a bill to provide for the effective prosecution of terrorists and guarantee due process rights. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Leahy, Feingold, and Menendez as original cosponsors. This bill would make significant important changes to the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which became law last October.

I have served in this body for more than a quarter-century, but I remember few days darker than September 28, 2006, the day the Senate passed President Bush's Military Commissions Act. Let me be honest with you, I believe this body gave in to fear that day. I believe we looked for refuge in the rule of men, when we should have trusted in the rule of law.

Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007 is more than mere tinkering with provisions of the Military Commissions Act. This legislation, which is similar to the bill that I introduced in the last Congress, makes major and important changes to that law in order to ensure we have the essential legal tools to achieve a lasting American victory without violating American values.

What does this proposed legislation do?

It restores the writ of habeas corpus for individuals held in U.S. custody.

It narrows the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in hostilities against the United States in a zone of active combat, who are not lawful combatants.

It requires that the United States live up to its Geneva Convention obligations by deleting a prohibition in the law that bars detainees from invoking Geneva Conventions as a source of rights at trial.

It permits the accused to retain qualified civilian attorneys to represent them at trial.

It prevents the use of evidence in court gained through the unreliable and immoral practices of torture and coercion.

It charges the military judge with the responsibility for ensuring that the jury is appropriately informed as to the sources, methods and activities associated with developing out of court statements proposed to be introduced at trial, or alternatively that the statement is not introduced.

It empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable.

It authorizes the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by the military commissions.

It limits the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and makes that authority subject to congressional and judicial oversight.

It clarifies the definition of war crimes in statute to include certain violations of the Geneva Conventions.

Finally, it provides for expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionally of its provisions.

To be clear--I absolutely believe that under very clearly proscribed circumstances military commissions can be a useful instrument for bringing our enemies to justice. But those who ask us to choose between national security and moral authority are offering us a false choice, and a dangerous one. Our Nation has been defeating tyrants and would-be tyrants for more than two centuries. And in all that struggle, we've never sold our principles--because if We did, we would be walking in the footsteps of those we most despise.

In times of peril, throwing away due process has been a constant temptation--but that is why we honor so highly those who resisted it. At Nuremberg, America rejected the certainty of execution for the uncertainty of a trial, and gave birth to a half-century of moral authority. Today I am asking my colleagues to reclaim that tradition, to put the principles of the Constitution above the passion of the moment. That reclamation can begin today--if we remedy President Bush's repugnant law. We can do it--and keep America Secure at the same time.

Freedom from torture. The right to counsel. Habeas corpus. To be honest, it still amazes me that we have to come to the floor of the Senate to debate these protections at all. What would James Madison have said if you told him that someday in the future, a Senator from Connecticut would be forced to publicly defend habeas corpus, the defendant's right to a day in court, the foundation of Our legal system dating back to the 13 century? What have we come to that such long- settled, long-honored rights have been called into question?

But here we are. And now it is upon us to renew them. I'd like to talk in detail about several key components of my legislation. The Military Commissions Act eliminated habeas corpus. Habeas corpus allows a person held by the government to question the legality of his detention. In my view, to deny this right not only undermines the rule of law, but damages the very fabric of America. It is not who we are, and it is not who we aspire to be. My bill reopens the doors to the Court house by restoring the writ of habeas corpus for individuals held in U.S. custody.

By approving the Military Commissions Act, Congress abdicated its constitutionally-mandated authority and responsibility to safeguard this principle and serve as a co-equal check on the executive branch. This law confers an unprecedented level of power on the president, allowing him the sole right to designate any individual as an ``unlawful enemy combatant'' if he or she engaged in hostilities or supported hostilities against the United States. In my view and in the view of many legal experts, this definition of ``unlawful enemy combatant'' is unmanageably vague. As we have all seen, ``unlawful enemy combatants'' are subject to arrest and indefinite detention, in many cases without ever being changed with a crime, let alone being found guilty. My bill would curtail potential abuse of the unlawful enemy combatant designation by narrowing the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in hostilities against the United States in ``a zone of active combat'', and who are not lawful combatants. This correction is desperately needed to restore America's standing in the world and to right injustices that have recently been documented by international human rights organizations.

According to the Pentagon, last October, only 70 out of the 435 detainees housed at U.S. prison camps were expected to face a military trial, leaving hundreds of others to be held indefinitely. And while the Pentagon acknowledges that at least 110 of these detainees were labeled ``ready to release,'' for some reason they have been kept under lock and key. Then there are stories such as the one about Asif Iqbal, a British humanitarian aid volunteer who, according to a January 10, 2007 Associated Press story, was mistakenly captured in Afghanistan and subjected to isolation, painful positioning, screeching music, strobe

lights, sleep deprivation, and extreme temperatures. After three months, of enduring such treatment, Iqbal was released in 2004 without any charges brought against him.

Such sordid episodes have gravely undermined our apparent commitment to the Geneva Conventions and damaged our status both at home and in the global community. By failing to reaffirm our obligations under these vital treaties, the Military Commissions Act has only further eroded America's moral authority and perhaps ceded our nation's status as the leading proponent of international law and human rights. For this reason, the legislation I am offering today will reaffirm our obligations under the Geneva Conventions in several key ways. First, it would allow detainees to invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights in their trials, overturning a ban put in place by the Military Commissions Act. Second, this legislation will limit the authority of the President to interpret and redefine the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions by subjecting this authority to Congressional and judicial oversight. Lastly, my bill would statutorily define certain violations of the Geneva Conventions as war crimes. These provisions are all vitally important in allowing the United States to effectively wage the war on terror. The war that we are currently waging requires increasing international cooperation, but the President's plan puts us on a path of increasing isolation from even our staunchest allies.

Furthermore, this path is undermining our government's commitments to fundamental tenets of the American legal system. One of these tenets entails the right of the accused not only to confront his/her accuser but also to retain an attorney to represent him/her at trial. This is a basic right afforded to even the most egregious criminals under domestic law. And yet, under the administration's plan, this measure is being abandoned. In response, my bill sets standards for legal representation and allows for civilian legal counsel in military commission proceedings.

Even more importantly, my bill improves on these proceedings by prohibiting the use in court of any evidence that was gained through the unreliable and immoral practices of coercion. Incredibly, the Military Commissions Act lacks this blanket ban on evidence gained through torture. This is critically important for two very different reasons. Torture has been proven to be ineffective in interrogations, yielding highly unreliable information because a detainee, hoping to end the pain, will simply say whatever he believes an interrogator wants to hear. Second, torture allows foreign militaries to mistreat future American prisoners of war and use U.S. actions as an excuse. No one has said it with more authority than our colleague, Senator John McCain.

As he stated last year, ``the intelligence we collect must be reliable and acquired humanely, under clear standards understood by all our fighting men and women . . . the cruel actions of a few to darken the reputation of our country in the eyes of millions,''

To address these concerns, my bill restores to military judges the responsibility of ensuring that information introduced at trial has not been obtained through methods defined as cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. Sadly, the Military Commissions Act shows disrespect for and mistrust of the highly trained professionals on our military's bench by stripping them of autonomy and authority. The legislation I am proposing today empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable. In addition, this bill will grant military judges discretion in the event that classified evidence has a bearing on the innocence of an individual but is excluded due to national security concerns and declassified alternatives are insufficient. America's military judges have been fully trained and prepared to handle classified information. The Bush administration's failure to recognize this fact is an insult to the men and women of our military's bench and an affront to our military's justice system.

Unlike the current administration, I trust our courts to be able to handle the delicate legal and national security issues inherent in the cases involving so-called unlawful enemy combatants. This legislation therefore provides for appeals of the military commissions' decisions to be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. In my view, the right to an appeal is one of the most fundamental rights granted to anyone in our justice system. We 3 grant appeals to people accused of some of the most heinous crimes imaginable. We do this because we know that courts are not infallible. They can err in their decisions, and in order for these mistakes to be rectified and to avoid punishing innocent men and women, appeals must be allowed.

All of these provisions are important. But perhaps none is more urgent than the final measure in my bill, which requires expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionally of its provisions. I believe that the United States Congress made a crucial mistake--that is why we must ensure that each provision of the Administration's Military Commissions Act is quickly reviewed by our Nation's courts. I believe that upon such review, those best qualified to make these judgments--members of our esteemed judiciary--will see to it that the most egregious provisions of this act will be overturned.

All 100 members of this body have been given the gravest of responsibilities. The people of this country have entrusted us with this Nation's security; and they have entrusted us with this Nation's principles. But those who argue that our principles stand in the way of our security are sadly, sorely mistaken: They are the source of our strength.

Five months ago, we departed from that source. But it is not too late to turn back. It is not too late to redeem our error. I implore my colleagues to join me.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007--a bill to provide for the effective prosecution of terrorists and guarantee due process rights. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Leahy, Feingold, and Menendez as original cosponsors. This bill would make significant important changes to the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which became law last October.

I have served in this body for more than a quarter-century, but I remember few days darker than September 28, 2006, the day the Senate passed President Bush's Military Commissions Act. Let me be honest with you, I believe this body gave in to fear that day. I believe we looked for refuge in the rule of men, when we should have trusted in the rule of law.

Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007 is more than mere tinkering with provisions of the Military Commissions Act. This legislation, which is similar to the bill that I introduced in the last Congress, makes major and important changes to that law in order to ensure we have the essential legal tools to achieve a lasting American victory without violating American values.

What does this proposed legislation do?

It restores the writ of habeas corpus for individuals held in U.S. custody.

It narrows the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in hostilities against the United States in a zone of active combat, who are not lawful combatants.

It requires that the United States live up to its Geneva Convention obligations by deleting a prohibition in the law that bars detainees from invoking Geneva Conventions as a source of rights at trial.

It permits the accused to retain qualified civilian attorneys to represent them at trial.

It prevents the use of evidence in court gained through the unreliable and immoral practices of torture and coercion.

It charges the military judge with the responsibility for ensuring that the jury is appropriately informed as to the sources, methods and activities associated with developing out of court statements proposed to be introduced at trial, or alternatively that the statement is not introduced.

It empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable.

It authorizes the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by the military commissions.

It limits the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and makes that authority subject to congressional and judicial oversight.

It clarifies the definition of war crimes in statute to include certain violations of the Geneva Conventions.

Finally, it provides for expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionally of its provisions.

To be clear--I absolutely believe that under very clearly proscribed circumstances military commissions can be a useful instrument for bringing our enemies to justice. But those who ask us to choose between national security and moral authority are offering us a false choice, and a dangerous one. Our Nation has been defeating tyrants and would-be tyrants for more than two centuries. And in all that struggle, we've never sold our principles--because if We did, we would be walking in the footsteps of those we most despise.

In times of peril, throwing away due process has been a constant temptation--but that is why we honor so highly those who resisted it. At Nuremberg, America rejected the certainty of execution for the uncertainty of a trial, and gave birth to a half-century of moral authority. Today I am asking my colleagues to reclaim that tradition, to put the principles of the Constitution above the passion of the moment. That reclamation can begin today--if we remedy President Bush's repugnant law. We can do it--and keep America Secure at the same time.

Freedom from torture. The right to counsel. Habeas corpus. To be honest, it still amazes me that we have to come to the floor of the Senate to debate these protections at all. What would James Madison have said if you told him that someday in the future, a Senator from Connecticut would be forced to publicly defend habeas corpus, the defendant's right to a day in court, the foundation of Our legal system dating back to the 13 century? What have we come to that such long- settled, long-honored rights have been called into question?

But here we are. And now it is upon us to renew them. I'd like to talk in detail about several key components of my legislation. The Military Commissions Act eliminated habeas corpus. Habeas corpus allows a person held by the government to question the legality of his detention. In my view, to deny this right not only undermines the rule of law, but damages the very fabric of America. It is not who we are, and it is not who we aspire to be. My bill reopens the doors to the Court house by restoring the writ of habeas corpus for individuals held in U.S. custody.

By approving the Military Commissions Act, Congress abdicated its constitutionally-mandated authority and responsibility to safeguard this principle and serve as a co-equal check on the executive branch. This law confers an unprecedented level of power on the president, allowing him the sole right to designate any individual as an ``unlawful enemy combatant'' if he or she engaged in hostilities or supported hostilities against the United States. In my view and in the view of many legal experts, this definition of ``unlawful enemy combatant'' is unmanageably vague. As we have all seen, ``unlawful enemy combatants'' are subject to arrest and indefinite detention, in many cases without ever being changed with a crime, let alone being found guilty. My bill would curtail potential abuse of the unlawful enemy combatant designation by narrowing the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in hostilities against the United States in ``a zone of active combat'', and who are not lawful combatants. This correction is desperately needed to restore America's standing in the world and to right injustices that have recently been documented by international human rights organizations.

According to the Pentagon, last October, only 70 out of the 435 detainees housed at U.S. prison camps were expected to face a military trial, leaving hundreds of others to be held indefinitely. And while the Pentagon acknowledges that at least 110 of these detainees were labeled ``ready to release,'' for some reason they have been kept under lock and key. Then there are stories such as the one about Asif Iqbal, a British humanitarian aid volunteer who, according to a January 10, 2007 Associated Press story, was mistakenly captured in Afghanistan and subjected to isolation, painful positioning, screeching music, strobe

lights, sleep deprivation, and extreme temperatures. After three months, of enduring such treatment, Iqbal was released in 2004 without any charges brought against him.

Such sordid episodes have gravely undermined our apparent commitment to the Geneva Conventions and damaged our status both at home and in the global community. By failing to reaffirm our obligations under these vital treaties, the Military Commissions Act has only further eroded America's moral authority and perhaps ceded our nation's status as the leading proponent of international law and human rights. For this reason, the legislation I am offering today will reaffirm our obligations under the Geneva Conventions in several key ways. First, it would allow detainees to invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights in their trials, overturning a ban put in place by the Military Commissions Act. Second, this legislation will limit the authority of the President to interpret and redefine the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions by subjecting this authority to Congressional and judicial oversight. Lastly, my bill would statutorily define certain violations of the Geneva Conventions as war crimes. These provisions are all vitally important in allowing the United States to effectively wage the war on terror. The war that we are currently waging requires increasing international cooperation, but the President's plan puts us on a path of increasing isolation from even our staunchest allies.

Furthermore, this path is undermining our government's commitments to fundamental tenets of the American legal system. One of these tenets entails the right of the accused not only to confront his/her accuser but also to retain an attorney to represent him/her at trial. This is a basic right afforded to even the most egregious criminals under domestic law. And yet, under the administration's plan, this measure is being abandoned. In response, my bill sets standards for legal representation and allows for civilian legal counsel in military commission proceedings.

Even more importantly, my bill improves on these proceedings by prohibiting the use in court of any evidence that was gained through the unreliable and immoral practices of coercion. Incredibly, the Military Commissions Act lacks this blanket ban on evidence gained through torture. This is critically important for two very different reasons. Torture has been proven to be ineffective in interrogations, yielding highly unreliable information because a detainee, hoping to end the pain, will simply say whatever he believes an interrogator wants to hear. Second, torture allows foreign militaries to mistreat future American prisoners of war and use U.S. actions as an excuse. No one has said it with more authority than our colleague, Senator John McCain.

As he stated last year, ``the intelligence we collect must be reliable and acquired humanely, under clear standards understood by all our fighting men and women . . . the cruel actions of a few to darken the reputation of our country in the eyes of millions,''

To address these concerns, my bill restores to military judges the responsibility of ensuring that information introduced at trial has not been obtained through methods defined as cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. Sadly, the Military Commissions Act shows disrespect for and mistrust of the highly trained professionals on our military's bench by stripping them of autonomy and authority. The legislation I am proposing today empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable. In addition, this bill will grant military judges discretion in the event that classified evidence has a bearing on the innocence of an individual but is excluded due to national security concerns and declassified alternatives are insufficient. America's military judges have been fully trained and prepared to handle classified information. The Bush administration's failure to recognize this fact is an insult to the men and women of our military's bench and an affront to our military's justice system.

Unlike the current administration, I trust our courts to be able to handle the delicate legal and national security issues inherent in the cases involving so-called unlawful enemy combatants. This legislation therefore provides for appeals of the military commissions' decisions to be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. In my view, the right to an appeal is one of the most fundamental rights granted to anyone in our justice system. We 3 grant appeals to people accused of some of the most heinous crimes imaginable. We do this because we know that courts are not infallible. They can err in their decisions, and in order for these mistakes to be rectified and to avoid punishing innocent men and women, appeals must be allowed.

All of these provisions are important. But perhaps none is more urgent than the final measure in my bill, which requires expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionally of its provisions. I believe that the United States Congress made a crucial mistake--that is why we must ensure that each provision of the Administration's Military Commissions Act is quickly reviewed by our Nation's courts. I believe that upon such review, those best qualified to make these judgments--members of our esteemed judiciary--will see to it that the most egregious provisions of this act will be overturned.

All 100 members of this body have been given the gravest of responsibilities. The people of this country have entrusted us with this Nation's security; and they have entrusted us with this Nation's principles. But those who argue that our principles stand in the way of our security are sadly, sorely mistaken: They are the source of our strength.

Five months ago, we departed from that source. But it is not too late to turn back. It is not too late to redeem our error. I implore my colleagues to join me.