Floor Statements

Mr. President, last week President Bush announced a plan to escalate U.S. military involvement in Iraq, the continuation of his failed policy in Iraq. I am strongly opposed to this course.

That is why I have introduced legislation today that will prohibit the number of troops in Iraq from exceeding the current force levels without an explicit authorization from Congress. As of January 16, 2007, United States Central Command reports 130,500 American service- members operating within the borders of Iraq.

It is my hope that Congress can begin debate on my proposal and others that may be forthcoming before the week is out. It is imperative that we in Congress act swiftly on this crucial issue.

Let's be very clear, my bill does not prohibit additional funding for American troops who are currently in harms way. I will continue to do everything that I can to support our troops so long as they are stationed in Iraq. My bill would prohibit President Bush from increasing the number of U.S. service-members in Iraq without prior authorization from Congress.

The President's decision to escalate U.S. military involvement is a true disservice to American troops who have shown nothing but professionalism and courage, and who should not be asked to risk their lives to become cannon fodder in a civil war rife with ethnic cleansing.

Moreover, I do not believe that the authorization provided by Congress in 2002 gives the President unlimited authority to send additional troops to Iraq for a mission which is completely different from the one the President himself articulated in March 2002, shortly after committing U.S. forces to Iraq. On March 22, 2002, the President of the United States said that our goal in invading Iraq was ``to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.''

We all now know that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to be disarmed. So we can no longer justify an additional troop presence on the grounds of WMDs. Saddam Hussein is no longer in a position to support terrorism, or anything else for that matter. As for freeing the Iraqi people--Iraq's dictator is dead and the Iraqi people have duly elected their own leaders to govern them.

Nothing in the 2002 resolution, or in the President's articulation of his goals for Iraq prior to that resolution suggested that the United States would, could, or should be engaged in trying to referee a civil war.

So Congress is confronted with two choices--do nothing; or respond decisively in opposition to staying the course--a course that is sure to produce an even more violent, less stable political and security climate in Iraq.

To me, that choice is clear. Leadership demands that those of us who think the President is on the wrong track, not simply stand up and say so, but act to stop this escalation from going forward.

I know that enacting legislation to stop the President from the course he has chosen will not be easy. But that doesn't mean that the Congress shouldn't debate it and vote on it--that is exactly what the American people sent us to Congress to do.

We have arrived at a moment of choice. The President and this Administration have chosen escalation--more bloodshed, more chaos, and more violence. If the President wants to escalate our military commitment to Iraq, and if the President wants to send more troops into the center of a civil war, then the President must make that case to the United States Congress and let the full Congress vote on the merits of such a plan.

The President has stated that he believes that as Commander-in-Chief he has the authority to order troops to Iraq in the face of Congressional opposition. We are a Nation of laws. The President is not above those laws. If Congress passes legislation to limit the deployment of troops to Iraq, the President will no longer have the luxury of ignoring the views of the Congress, a co-equal branch of government. And the time for a blank check is over.

Mr. President, on the 5th anniversary of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), I rise today to introduce The Standards to Provide Educational Achievement for Kids (SPEAK) Act, a bill designed to start the job of holding every child in America to the same high standards. At its core, SPEAK will create, adopt, and implement voluntary core American education content standards in math and science while incentivizing States to adopt them.

America's leadership, economic, and national security rest on our commitment to educate and prepare our youth to succeed in a global economy. The key to succeeding in this endeavor is to have high expectations for all American students as they progress through our Nation's schools.

Currently there are 50 different sets of academic standards, 50 State assessments, and 50 definitions of proficiency under the No Child Left Behind Act. As a result of varied standards, exams and proficiency levels, America's highly mobile student-aged population moves through the Nation's schools gaining widely varying levels of knowledge, skills and preparedness. And yet, in order for the United States to compete in a global economy, we must strengthen our educational expectations for all American children--we must compete as one Nation.

Recent international comparisons show that American students have significant shortcomings in math and science. Many lack the basic skills required for college or the workplace. This affects our economic and national security; it holds us back in the global marketplace and risks ceding our competitive edge. This is unacceptable.

America was founded on the notion of ensuring equity and opportunity for all. And yet, we risk both when we allow different students in different States to graduate from high school with very different educations. We live in a Nation with an unacceptably high high school dropout rate. We live in a Nation where 8th graders in some States score more than 30 points higher on tests of basic science knowledge than students in other States. I ask my colleagues today what equality of opportunity we have under such circumstances.

This is where American standards come in. Voluntary, core American standards in math and science are the first step in ensuring that all American students are given the same opportunity to learn to a high standard no matter where they reside. They will allow for meaningful comparisons of student academic achievement across States, help ensure that American students are academically qualified to enter college or training for the civilian or military workforce, and help ensure that students are better prepared to compete in the global marketplace. Uniform standards are a first step in maintaining America's competitive and national security edge.

While I realize there will be resistance to such efforts, education is after all a State endeavor; we cannot ignore that at the end of the day America competes as one country on the global marketplace. This does not mean that I am asking States to cede their authority in education. What the bill simply proposes is that we use the convening power of the Federal Government to develop standards and then provide States with incentives to adopt them.

At the end of the day, this is a voluntary measure. States will choose whether or not to participate. States that do participate, while required to adopt the American standards, will be given the flexibility to make them their own. They will have the option to add additional content requirements, they will have final say in how coursework is sequenced, and, ultimately, States and districts will still be the ones developing the curriculum, choosing the textbooks and administering the tests. The standards provided for under this legislation will simply serve as a common core.

The SPEAK Act will task the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) with creating rigorous and voluntary core American education content standards in math and science for grades K-12. It will require that the standards be anchored in the National Assessment of Educational Progress' (NAEP) math and science frameworks. It will ensure that such standards are internationally competitive and comparable to the best standards in the world. It will develop rigorous achievement levels. It will ensure that varying developmental levels of students are taken into account in the development of such standards. It will provide for periodic review and update of such standards. It will allow participating States the flexibility to add additional standards to the core. And, it establishes an American Standards Incentive Fund to incentivize States to adopt the standards. Among the benefits of participating is a significant infusion of funds for States to bolster their K-12 data systems.

What I propose today is a first step. A first step in regaining our competitive edge. A first step in ensuring that all American students have the opportunity to receive a first class, high-quality education. It is not a step that I am taking alone.

The SPEAK Act has garnered endorsements from businesses, math/science organizations, foundations, and the education community, including the National Education Association (NEA). Through the leadership of Congressman Vernon Ehlers in the House of Representatives it shares not only bicameral, but bipartisan support. Together we have all come together to affect meaningful change in our public schools.

We live in an economy where you can no longer lift, dig or assemble your way to success. Today, you've got to think your way to success so that when public education doesn't work, when we fail to compete as one nation, our entire country gets left behind. Low expectations translate to an America that is less competitive on the world stage. If that happens, we are going to wonder why we didn't do anything about it while we still had time.

Core American standards will set high goals for all students, allow for meaningful comparisons of achievement across States, and help ensure

that all of our students are qualified to enter college. At the end of the day, we all want what's best for our country and parents want what's best for their kids. With core standards, America will begin the work of regaining its competitive edge in the global economy. And in the life of every student, equality will be made a little more real with introduction of this bill, as the skills and knowledge we expect of them are no longer made contingent on where they reside.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting the SPEAK Act. As we start holding our students to the same high standards, I expect that we will be amazed at the excellence that follows. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, on the 5th anniversary of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), I rise today to introduce The Standards to Provide Educational Achievement for Kids (SPEAK) Act, a bill designed to start the job of holding every child in America to the same high standards. At its core, SPEAK will create, adopt, and implement voluntary core American education content standards in math and science while incentivizing States to adopt them.

America's leadership, economic, and national security rest on our commitment to educate and prepare our youth to succeed in a global economy. The key to succeeding in this endeavor is to have high expectations for all American students as they progress through our Nation's schools.

Currently there are 50 different sets of academic standards, 50 State assessments, and 50 definitions of proficiency under the No Child Left Behind Act. As a result of varied standards, exams and proficiency levels, America's highly mobile student-aged population moves through the Nation's schools gaining widely varying levels of knowledge, skills and preparedness. And yet, in order for the United States to compete in a global economy, we must strengthen our educational expectations for all American children--we must compete as one Nation.

Recent international comparisons show that American students have significant shortcomings in math and science. Many lack the basic skills required for college or the workplace. This affects our economic and national security; it holds us back in the global marketplace and risks ceding our competitive edge. This is unacceptable.

America was founded on the notion of ensuring equity and opportunity for all. And yet, we risk both when we allow different students in different States to graduate from high school with very different educations. We live in a Nation with an unacceptably high high school dropout rate. We live in a Nation where 8th graders in some States score more than 30 points higher on tests of basic science knowledge than students in other States. I ask my colleagues today what equality of opportunity we have under such circumstances.

This is where American standards come in. Voluntary, core American standards in math and science are the first step in ensuring that all American students are given the same opportunity to learn to a high standard no matter where they reside. They will allow for meaningful comparisons of student academic achievement across States, help ensure that American students are academically qualified to enter college or training for the civilian or military workforce, and help ensure that students are better prepared to compete in the global marketplace. Uniform standards are a first step in maintaining America's competitive and national security edge.

While I realize there will be resistance to such efforts, education is after all a State endeavor; we cannot ignore that at the end of the day America competes as one country on the global marketplace. This does not mean that I am asking States to cede their authority in education. What the bill simply proposes is that we use the convening power of the Federal Government to develop standards and then provide States with incentives to adopt them.

At the end of the day, this is a voluntary measure. States will choose whether or not to participate. States that do participate, while required to adopt the American standards, will be given the flexibility to make them their own. They will have the option to add additional content requirements, they will have final say in how coursework is sequenced, and, ultimately, States and districts will still be the ones developing the curriculum, choosing the textbooks and administering the tests. The standards provided for under this legislation will simply serve as a common core.

The SPEAK Act will task the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) with creating rigorous and voluntary core American education content standards in math and science for grades K-12. It will require that the standards be anchored in the National Assessment of Educational Progress' (NAEP) math and science frameworks. It will ensure that such standards are internationally competitive and comparable to the best standards in the world. It will develop rigorous achievement levels. It will ensure that varying developmental levels of students are taken into account in the development of such standards. It will provide for periodic review and update of such standards. It will allow participating States the flexibility to add additional standards to the core. And, it establishes an American Standards Incentive Fund to incentivize States to adopt the standards. Among the benefits of participating is a significant infusion of funds for States to bolster their K-12 data systems.

What I propose today is a first step. A first step in regaining our competitive edge. A first step in ensuring that all American students have the opportunity to receive a first class, high-quality education. It is not a step that I am taking alone.

The SPEAK Act has garnered endorsements from businesses, math/science organizations, foundations, and the education community, including the National Education Association (NEA). Through the leadership of Congressman Vernon Ehlers in the House of Representatives it shares not only bicameral, but bipartisan support. Together we have all come together to affect meaningful change in our public schools.

We live in an economy where you can no longer lift, dig or assemble your way to success. Today, you've got to think your way to success so that when public education doesn't work, when we fail to compete as one nation, our entire country gets left behind. Low expectations translate to an America that is less competitive on the world stage. If that happens, we are going to wonder why we didn't do anything about it while we still had time.

Core American standards will set high goals for all students, allow for meaningful comparisons of achievement across States, and help ensure

that all of our students are qualified to enter college. At the end of the day, we all want what's best for our country and parents want what's best for their kids. With core standards, America will begin the work of regaining its competitive edge in the global economy. And in the life of every student, equality will be made a little more real with introduction of this bill, as the skills and knowledge we expect of them are no longer made contingent on where they reside.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting the SPEAK Act. As we start holding our students to the same high standards, I expect that we will be amazed at the excellence that follows. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today unable to find the words I need to express just what it has been like to go to work every day with a real, live Greek philosopher.

Of course, I mean Paul Sarbanes--who is the longest-serving Senator in the history of the State of Maryland; who has been among the wisest members to sit in this body; who is serving out his last week here with us. I have come to the floor today to say goodbye; and as I do, I remember one of my favorite Greek stories--which, in a bit of a roundabout way, reminds me of Paul.

When the Athenians set up the first democracy and declared that every citizen could go and vote in the Assembly, they ran into just one problem--no one wanted to go. It turned out that the Athenians were also the first to discover voter apathy: It turned out that most of the citizens would much rather spend time buying and selling in the Marketplace than arguing politics in the Assembly.

So the leaders came up with a plan. They hired the two burliest men they could find and gave them a long rope clipped in fresh red paint. And then the two burly men would stand on opposite sides of the market square and shout ``Everybody out.'' And after about a minute, they would each grab an end of the rope that was dripping with paint and walk down the square; and anybody who didn't get out of there in time had to go around for the rest of the day with his shirt ruined.

I said that story reminds me a bit of Senator Sarbanes. Not because his clothing has been anything but impeccable and stain-free--but because it points out just how remarkable his 40-year career in public life has been. The truth is that people have been finding ways to avoid the responsibility of governing since governing was invented. So when we have the luck to find a man willing to give not just an afternoon's service to his country, but a whole life--and when he turns out to be a man of uncommon intelligence and humility--we know what a treasure we have stumbled on.

We can think back to those Athenians dawdling in the marketplace and ask ourselves: didn't they know? Didn't they know they were in ``Ancient Greece,'' for crying out loud? Didn't they know they were supposed to be in the cradle of democracy? Didn't they know we'd be talking about them a couple of millennia later on the floor of the U.S. Senate?

But of course, they had no idea, and we can't blame them--they had lives to live. Compared to the getting and spending, the errands and talk that go on in the market square, the work of governing can seem like a book of the driest prose. The print is tiny and the lines are closely spaced.

It takes an uncommon mind to appreciate the value, the necessity, of what's in that book--but Paul Sarbanes has had one all his life. He showed it when he won a Rhodes Scholarship and went on to graduate first in his class at Oxford. He showed it when he was elected to the Maryland House of Delegates back in 1966, and then through 3 terms in the House and 5 in the Senate, through a career one newspaper called ``electorally invincible.'' And he showed it as one of the most quietly influential members of this body, a listener in a town full of talkers, a living example of the maxim, ``It's amazing what you can accomplish when you don't care who gets the credit.''

But I can think of at least one accomplishment for which Senator Sarbanes's credit is assured. In 2002, when he was chairman of the Banking Committee, a series of corporate scandals shocked the stock market, sapped trust in our economy, and cost shareholders and workers billions of dollars. But Paul confronted the crisis of confidence and wrote legislation that helped restore accountability to accounting. Sarbanes-Oxley was greeted as the most fundamental reform of American business since the Great Depression; and I believe it will be Paul's legacy. I was proud to help him; and I will be even prouder to sit in his chairman's seat on the Banking Committee. Paul--your work will be mine, I promise.

Of course, Senator Sarbanes will be leaving another legacy here in Washington--his son John, who was elected to represent his father's old House district in the 110th Congress. I've never met John Sarbanes, but if the son is anything like the father, 2006 will look a lot like 1970: We'll be sable to walk over to the House side and find a bright young man of immigrant heritage at the start of his Washington career, brought up in the tradition of service and full of the quiet virtues.

I don't think politics has changed so much since 1970 that those virtues aren't still in high demand. And come to think of it, politics hasn't changed so much since the days of the rope in the marketplace-- with at least one notable exception. We have gotten rid of the rope. In our country, no one forces you to care. No one forces you to vote. No one forces you to serve. If you do those things anyway, it's not a measure of compulsion, but of conviction. And if, like Paul Sarbanes, you had the talent to make a career for yourself anywhere in the world but chose to spend it here, then we owe you our thanks--for your company, for your wisdom, for 40 years well spent in the Assembly.

Goodbye, Senator Sarbanes,--and my best wishes for you and your wife Christine for many years to come.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to my departing colleagues who have, for a time, lent their talents, their convictions, and their hard work to this distinguished body. I may have had my disagreements with them, but the end of a term is a time for seeing colleagues not simply as politicians, but as partners who have ``toiled, and wrought, and thought with me.'' Each,

in his own way, was distinctive; and each, in his own way, will be sorely missed.

Rick Santorum

I want to first recognize Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who has been a colleague of mine in this body for 12 years. During that time he rose to No. 3 in the Republican leadership, as chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, and made a name for himself as a young and energetic conservative.

Rick Santorum is the son of an Italian immigrant who earned a law degree and an MBA and won election to the House of Representatives at the tender age of 32. After two terms in the House he won his first Senate election in 1994, as well as reelection in 2000. Senator Santorum quickly established himself as one of the faces of his party, a testament to his strong principles and his communications skill.

Throughout his legislative career, Senator Santorum has been especially strong on anti-poverty measures. He served as a floor manager for welfare reform in the mid-1990s. In the Senate, he worked for African debt relief and funding for the fight against AIDS, often collaborating closely with his colleagues across the aisle. His efforts moved Bono to declare him ``a defender of the most vulnerable.''

I was especially pleased to work with Senator Santorum on the Combating Autism Act. When nearly 1 in every 166 children born today will be diagnosed with this developmental disorder by the time they reach school age, government action is more necessary than ever. Senator Santorum recognized that, and he helped me work for a bill that, in the final version, would authorize $945 million for autism research, screening, education, and services--double the current level of funding. On poverty, AIDS, autism, and many similar issues, Rick Santorum has been a dependable ally.

Over his 12 years in the Senate, Rick Santorum dedicated himself to a philosophy he described as ``healthy families, freedom of faith, a vibrant civil society, a proper understanding of the individual, and a focused government to achieve noble purposes.''

Senator Santorum and I may not have always seen eye-to-eye, but no one ever questioned his commitment to principle. I wish him, his wife Karen, and their six children all the best.

Mike DeWine

I also want to say farewell to Senator Mike DeWine. Senator DeWine, a former prosecutor, has had a distinguished career in Ohio politics. He represented his district for four terms in the House of Representatives, and he served as Ohio's Lieutenant Governor for 4 years, beginning in 1991. Mike DeWine was elected to the Senate as part of the famous Republican class of 1994 and served for a total of 12 years. I have had few more valuable partners on the other side of the aisle.

Senator DeWine and I have been strong opponents of underage drinking, a social malady that, in the last year for which we have data, led directly to 3,500 deaths, 2 million injuries, and 1,200 babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome, not to mention $53 billion in social costs. The STOP Underage Drinking Act, which I cosponsored with Senator DeWine, would fund a comprehensive Federal campaign of research, prevention grants, and a media messages aimed to keep children and young adults alcohol-free. I am proud to stand with Senator DeWine on such a critically important issue.

And I am just as proud to have his support on a whole slew of health initiatives, especially for infants and children. Because States' variable screening standards leave many newborns at risk for treatable disorders, we have worked together to standardize screening across the Nation so that all newborns have an equal promise of health, no matter where they are born. Senator DeWine and I have also worked together for safer pediatric medical devices. But above all, Senator DeWine worked with me to secure passage of the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act. That legislation provides incentives for the drug industry that have dramatically increased the number of drugs tested and labeled for children; as a result, more than a hundred drug labels have been changed to incorporate new pediatric information.

It has been a pleasure to serve and work with Senator DeWine. I have always admired his ability to put principle before party, and I am thankful for all of his help, and most importantly, for his friendship. I wish him and his wife Frances much happiness in the future.

Jim Talent

I would also like to recognize Senator Jim Talent. Senator Talent has been a lifelong resident of St. Louis; and even when he was attending Washington University in his hometown, his outstanding intellect was on display as he was named the most outstanding undergraduate in political science. It was a sign of success to come. Jim Talent was elected to the U.S. House in 1992 and served a total of 12 years in Congress, the last 4 representing Missouri in the Senate.

I was especially proud to work with Senator Talent on legislation of the utmost moral importance: a bill that would establish new offices at the Department of Justice and FBI to investigate and prosecute Civil Rights-era murders. This legislation would help ensure that those who took the lives of civil rights workers, and have thus far escaped justice, never have another peaceful night of sleep. Senator Talent said it eloquently: ``We want the murderers and their accomplices who are still living to know there's an entire section of the Department of Justice that is going after them. We need to unearth the truth and do justice because there can not be healing without the truth.''

Senator Talent was also known for his work for renewable energy, his opposition to predatory lending, and his solid social conservatism. And though we didn't always agree, I am sure everyone who served with him has respected his intellect and his outspokenness. May he and his wife Brenda have many more years of happiness.

Lincoln Chafee

Next, I would like to send my best wishes to Senator Lincoln Chafee. Senator Chafee and I have a fair bit in common: we are both lifelong New Englanders, and we both had Senators for fathers. After completing his undergraduate studies at Brown University, and while many of his colleagues were busy studying law or political science, Lincoln Chafee studied horseshoeing. I imagine he is the only modern Senator to have worked as a professional farrier for 7 years. And while Senator Chafee eventually took up the family business and went into politics, he has always retained the humility and good humor that so often come to those who spend time working with their hands.

Senator Chafee was a popular mayor of Warwick, RI, and on the death of his father, Senator John Chafee, was appointed to fill out the remainder of the term. He was elected in his own right in 2000, and has served a total of 7 years in the upper house, cementing a reputation as an independent thinker and one of his State's most popular politicians.

I especially enjoyed serving alongside Senator Chafee on the Foreign Relations Committee. He was a welcome travel partner. On trips to Latin America, it was always reassuring to have a familiar New England accent at my side. On a more serious note, I have come to respect Senator Chafee's courage and principle, especially on the matter of John Bolton's nomination as United Nations Ambassador. Senator Chafee spoke out in favor of competent diplomatic representation at the UN. Because of his efforts, we are closer to the day when our representative at the world body will work to win respect from the world, not alienation.

On that issue and many others, Senator Chafee was never afraid to put his beliefs ahead of party pressure. He has voted to support stem cell research and a responsible exit strategy in Iraq; and his strong environmental record, including opposition to oil drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve, has earned him the endorsement of prominent conservationist groups.

We will miss his independent mind and his true Yankee spirit. I wish all the best to Senator Chafee and his wife, Stephanie.

Conrad Burns

I would also like to bid farewell to outgoing Senator Conrad Burns of Montana. Conrad Burns is the longest serving Senator in the history of his State, and he has long been known for his plainspoken and blunt style. Conrad Burns served as a Marine in Japan and Korea, and back home he made a name for himself as a livestock

specialist, auctioneer, and radio agricultural reporter. He proved himself a canny businessman, as one radio program grew into a network of 31 radio stations and six television stations.

A passion for local politics led him to win a seat on the Yellowstone County Commission. When he first ran for the Senate in 1988, Mr. Burns was still a relative political novice; but he was known throughout the State of Montana for his successful business ventures, and he won election over an incumbent. Senator Burns was reelected in 1994 and 2000.

Over 18 years in this body, Senator Burns built up a record as an influential committee member, sitting on Appropriations and chairing a Subcommittee on Communications, as well as another on the Interior, with jurisdiction over the entire National Parks Service. Senator Burns has taken pride in securing resources for his State, as well as in opening up the promise of advanced telecommunications for all. He worked with Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon to pass the CAN SPAM Act, which combats unsolicited e-mail. Senator Burns has also worked for Internet deregulation and broadband access in rural and areas, earning him praise as ``one of the fathers of the modern Internet.'' That is quite an achievement for a onetime cattle auctioneer.

Now Senator Burns is returning to his home State of Montana, and I hope he and his wife Phyllis have many years of happiness there.

Mark Dayton

I would also like to recognize Senator Mark Dayton of Minnesota. Senator Dayton's talents have long been apparent, whether graduating cum laude from Yale University, starting in goal for the college hockey team, or spending time as a teacher on the Lower East Side of New York City. Senator Dayton has long been involved in public service and Minnesota politics, serving on Walter Mondale's Senate staff in the 1970s and working in the 1980s and 1990s for economic development in his home State. Senator Dayton was elected state auditor in 1990, serving a 4-year term fighting the misuse and theft of public funds. In 2000, he once again entered State politics, defeating an incumbent to win a term in the Senate.

Mark Dayton took many principled stands during his time in the Senate, from his opposition to the Iraq War resolution to his work to fully fund special education. Senator Dayton was also known for his engagement with the needs of his Minnesota constituents. He won $3 million for a Minnesota National Guard program to provide soldiers with postcombat counseling and support, worked to hire 148 additional patrol agents to secure the United States-Canada border, and even donated his Senate salary to pay for bus trips to Canada so seniors could buy cheaper prescription drugs.

Senator Dayton chose to retire after serving out his term, but he declared that ``everything I've worked for, and everything I believe in, depends upon this Senate seat remaining in the Democratic caucus in 2007.'' Senator Dayton's wish came true when Amy Klobuchar won an election to fill his seat; and I trust she will continue in Mark Dayton's tradition of capable and hard-working representation for the people of Minnesota. Senator Dayton is returning to private life in his home state, and I wish him all the best.

George Allen

Next, I would like to bid farewell to Virginia's George Allen. As we all know, Senator Allen is the son of the great football coach, George H. Allen. As a boy and young man, Senator Allen lived all over America, wherever his father's career took the family. But in the end, Senator Allen fell in love with the State of Virginia, especially its wealth of history. ``I was going to go into a partnership with someone in Charlottesville in an old building built in 1814,'' he said, describing his first law practice. ``Mr. Jefferson played the fiddle there, allegedly . . . I lived in it while renovating. I started my law practice and then bought a log house out in the country, in the woods. Charlottesville is where I wanted to take my stand.''

In 1982, George Allen won election to the Virginia House of Delegates--and Thomas Jefferson's old seat. In 1991, he was elected to a term in the House of Representatives, and 2 years later, became Governor of Virginia, a post in which he distinguished himself as an energetic executive. As Governor, George Allen fought violent crime, reformed his State's welfare system, and signed the standards of learning education reform bill, which helped inspire No Child Left Behind. In 2000, he was elected to the Senate, where he served on committees including Commerce and Foreign Relations.

In the Senate, George Allen made a name for himself on technology issues, keeping the Internet free of taxation, securing nanotechnology funding, and providing high-tech grants to historically black colleges. It's also been a pleasure to work with Senator Allen for several years on our own legislation to enhance America's competitiveness in the field of aviation by investing in aeronautics research and a new generation of aerospace scientists. In addition to his technology interests, Senator Allen was also a strong advocate of balanced budgets.

George Allen is leaving the Senate, but we will remember him for his affable demeanor and love of history. He was fond of quoting Thomas Jefferson's 1801 Inaugural Address: ``The sum of good government is a wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another but otherwise leave them free to regulate their own pursuits of industry.'' George Allen did his best to live and work by those principles, and as he returns to private life, I wish happiness to him, his wife Anne, and their three children.

Bill Frist

Last but not least--the departing majority leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee. His leadership position has only been the cap on a lifetime of accomplishment. Bill Frist is a leading transplant surgeon, who has performed more than 150 heart or lung transplants, as well as a highly successful medical businessman. The same drive that fueled him in politics, medicine, and business also inspired him to earn his pilot's license and complete seven marathons. Senator Frist will be remembered as a competent majority leader, not to mention as the first medical doctor elected to the Senate since 1928.

After pursuing his medical career for nearly two decades, Bill Frist established himself in Tennessee politics and was elected to the Senate in 1994 and was reelected in 2000 with the highest vote total for any statewide election in his State's history. As the Senate's only medical doctor at the time, he attended to the victims of the 1998 Capitol shooting, and he also served as a respected spokesman on anthrax and bioterrorism following the terrorist attacks of 2001.

Besides leading the Senate since 2003, Bill Frist found recognition for his outspoken positions on Medicare reform, judicial nominations, and social issues. He also worked to establish a nuanced position on stem cell research. Though we didn't always see eye-to-eye, we were able to work together on important legislation, including bills on obesity prevention and food allergies. And I think I can speak for all of my colleagues when I thank him for his hard work in running the Senate for the past 3 years--or, as a predecessor put it, ``herding cats.''

Bill Frist is returning to his philanthropic work and his medical practice, where I am sure he will find his success undiminished and his skill undulled. I wish him, his wife Karyn, and their three sons many happy years.

Senators Sarbanes and Dayton

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Senate's unanimous passage of the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act earlier this week. It has been 25 years since the first AIDS diagnosis in the United States. At present, approximately 40,000 Americans are newly infected with this disease each year, and more than half of those diagnoses are in people under age 25. This is a disease that has taken its toll on millions of individuals and families, but as a result of combined Federal, State and local efforts to support individuals living with this disease as well as advances in treatment options, many Americans living with HIV/AIDS continue to have thriving, productive lives.

Since 1990, when the Ryan White CARE Act was first authorized, we have made incredible strides in treating and caring for individuals in the United States affected by HIV/AIDS. The number of new infections each year has dropped from more than 100,000 in 1990 to approximately 40,000 today. Mother-to-child transmission has dropped from 2,000 to fewer than 200 cases annually. Life expectancy for those with the disease has increased by almost 20 years. In fact, more people are now living with AIDS in the United States than at any other time in the epidemic.

The Ryan White CARE Act is at least partially responsible for these successes. But there is much more work to be done. It is estimated that more than a quarter of those infected with HIV do not know it, and many who do know it still do not have access to needed care and services. And HIV/AIDS disproportionately affects the poor and minorities. African Americans account for up to 54 percent of new HIV infections and Latinos account for 19 percent of new infections, though they account for only approximately 12 percent and 13 percent of the U.S. population, respectively. Hispanic and African-American women account for 82 percent of new infections among females in the United States.

For many years I have been particularly concerned about the impact this disease has on children and families. Last year, Senator Bond and I introduced legislation to reauthorize and strengthen title IV of the Ryan White CARE Act. For those who are unfamiliar with title IV, it provides grants for coordinated care, services, and research for women, infants, children, and youth. The programs and services funded by title IV have kept families alive and together. For example, title IV projects have led the way toward reducing mother-to-child transmission from more than 2,000 babies born HIV-positive each year to fewer than 200. In my home State of Connecticut, a total of 213 babies have been born to HIV-positive mothers since 2002. Of that total, only one baby has been confirmed as HIV-positive.

The bill passed earlier this week by the Senate contains many significant improvements to title IV that were part of the legislation Senator Bond and I introduced. I believe those changes will improve the treatment and services for women, families, and youth provided under the Ryan White CARE Act. However, I am deeply disappointed in the authorization level for title IV contained in the bill. All other titles of this bill authorize increases in funding except title IV, which is flat funded. I pushed hard to secure a comparable increase for title IV, and although I am disappointed with the final outcome, I realize this is an authorization bill, not an appropriations bill, and I will work to secure increased funding for this critical title.

Unfortunately, it appears that the 109th Congress will come to a close without the House and Senate having passed a Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007. It is a failure on the part of the leaders in the House and Senate that we did not debate this bill and have an opportunity to increase funding for the Ryan White CARE Act. As we look to the next Congress, I urge my colleagues and the whole advocacy community to join me in fighting for providing adequate funding for this program.

I believe that the bill passed unanimously in the Senate is a fair compromise which stabilizes funding for cities and States and urban and rural areas for the next 3 years. Without this legislation, 17 States-- including Connecticut--and the District of Columbia stand to lose millions of dollars next year. This legislation is now before the House of Representatives. It is my hope that the house will act quickly to pass this legislation so that these States and the District do not experience a disruption in critical care and treatment services for people living with HIV/AIDS.

In closing, I want to commend the hard work of the members and their staff in both Chambers who developed this bipartisan, bicameral compromise bill over the past 2 years. In particular, I would like to recognize Connie Garner with Senator Kennedy and Shana Christrup with Senator Enzi who worked tirelessly to incorporate the priorities of many offices. I would also like to thank the many public health advocacy organizations who contributed to the development of this legislation.

Mr. President, I am extremely grateful that my Senate colleagues considered and passed the Combating Autism Act yesterday, following the House's passage yesterday afternoon. The Combating Autism Act promotes early detection, early evidence-based interventions, research, and services for individuals with autism. It also reauthorizes the epidemiologic surveillance programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This legislation is absolutely vital for the hundreds of thousands of families across America who struggle each and every day with autism, and I commend my Senate colleagues for passing it today so that the President can sign it into law before the end of the year.

Autism has a profound effect on children and their families. It affects a child's ability to communicate and to form relationships with others. Some children with autism are relatively high functioning, while others suffer from serious language delays, motor problems, and rigid behaviors. Because autism is a spectrum disorder, symptoms range from mild to extremely severe. Many children with autism will require lifelong care.

Mr. President, health care for individuals with autism over their lifetimes costs approximately $35 billion per year. By 2015, the annual cost of care could reach an estimated $300 billion, but this figure can be cut in half with early diagnosis, services, and intervention. I believe strongly that to reduce the economic burden for individuals with autism and to ensure that children have a chance to achieve their highest potential and live productive and independent lives as adults, we must support aggressive efforts to understand what causes autism and to improve early screening, diagnosis, and services for individuals and their families who live with autism every day.

As my colleagues are well aware, the prevalence of autism in the United States is 10 times greater now than a decade ago. It is estimated that about 1 in 166 children born today will be diagnosed with autism by the time they reach school age, up from one in 10,000 in 1987. In my own State of Connecticut, autism diagnoses have increased eleven-fold since 1993. We simply must provide answers to all those affected by this devastating condition, and the Combating Autism Act is a critical first step.

There are many theories as to why autism diagnoses have increased. Some have suggested that it is simply a reflection of better diagnostic tools and measures. Other theories focus on genetic or environmental factors. But the fact is that when it comes to autism, we do not know what causes it, we do not know exactly how to diagnose it, and we still do not know how best to intervene.

What we do know is that growing numbers of children and their families suffer from and cope with this disorder, and we simply must do more to bring hope to all who are in its grip. This is why the Combating Autism Act is so important. By expanding the Federal response to autism and other developmental disabilities through the Combating Autism Act, we will see improved research on autism, including its causes, and families across America will get the services they so urgently need.

Mr. President, I commend my colleagues in the Senate and the House for acting on this important legislation. Although the Combating Autism Act has undergone some modification since the Senate first passed it in August of this year, and it is by no means a perfect bill, it provides an essential starting point in what I hope will be an ongoing legislative effort to provide hope and answers to the families across America who live and cope with autism every day. I am hopeful that the President will sign it into law before the end of the year. In my view, we must not lose the momentum that has brought us here today. Those children and their

families living with autism deserve our support now, and they deserve answers.

I'd like to conclude by thanking my colleagues, Senator Santorum, Chairman Enzi, ranking member Senator Kennedy, and their staffs, as well as Chairman Barton and ranking member Representative Dingell and their staffs, for their extraordinary hard work on this bill. I also wish to offer my sincere thanks and appreciation to all of the individuals who are personally affected by autism and the many advocacy groups who represent them for their continued dedication and passionate commitment to this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the passage of the Prematurity Research Expansion and Education for Mothers who deliver Infants Early Act, the PREEMIE Act. This legislation which I introduced with Senator Lamar Alexander passed unanimously in the Senate last August and I am pleased to inform my colleagues that after working with the House on some modifications to the bill, it has now passed in both Chambers.

The PREEMIE Act takes a big step toward understanding the causes of premature birth and how to prevent it. Specifically, the bill authorizes approximately $65 million over 5 years to expand and intensify activities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with respect to preterm births and infant mortality, to study the relationship between prematurity and birth defects, to carry out a public and health care provider education and supportive services effort, to authorize an Interagency Coordinating Council on Prematurity and Low Birthweight, and to convene a Surgeon General's Conference on Preterm Birth which will make recommendations to the public and private sectors on ways to better identify and treat the causes of and risk factors for preterm labor and delivery.

This is not the same bill the Senate passed unanimously. To begin with, this bill authorizes $26 million less than the bill the Senate passed last August. This is due in large part to the removal of authorizations for multidisciplinary research underway at the National Institutes of Health. It is my hope that despite these changes, the NIH will continue this vital research in order to better understand the role DNA plays in prematurity and to improve maternal and fetal health outcomes.

Nearly 1 out of every 8 babies in the U.S. is born prematurely--that is more than 1,300 babies each day and more than 500,000 each year. According to recent data, in 2002 the infant mortality rate actually increased for the first time since 1958. Much of this increase is attributable to infant death in the first month of life, of which prematurity is the leading cause.

Although we know some risk factors associated with prematurity such as advanced age of the mother, smoking, and certain chronic diseases, the cause of nearly 50 percent of all premature births is still unknown. Prematurity has been linked to such long-term health problems as cerebral palsy, chronic lung disease, and vision and hearing loss.

According to a recent report by the Institute of Medicine, medical care costs due to prematurity and low birth weight were $16.9 billion in 2005, $33,200 per preterm infant. The March of Dimes estimates that about half of preterm birth medical care costs were paid for by Medicaid. For employers, health care costs for a premature baby during the first year of life average $41,610 compared to $2,830 for a full- term baby. However, none of these numbers can quantify the emotional toll a premature birth takes on a family.

That is why the PREEMIE bill is so essential. This legislation will go a long way toward helping families during what can be the most difficult moments of their baby's life and will help us better understand and prevent premature births in the future.

I conclude by thanking Senator Alexander for his leadership on this legislation. He has been a terrific partner in this effort and I look forward to working with him in the 110th Congress. I also thank Chairman Enzi and Ranking Member Kennedy and their staffs for making the passage of the PREEMIE Act a priority this Congress. Lastly, I would to recognize Page Kranbuhl of Senator Alexander's staff for her work on this legislation as well as Emil Wigode, Carolyn Doyle and Jo Merrill of the March of Dimes who have stood with us every step of the way.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the confirmation of Robert Gates to become our Nation's next Secretary of Defense.

I recently had the opportunity to meet with Dr. Gates in my office. I appreciated his frankness, both in my discussions with him as well as during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

He demonstrated candor and pledged independence that the current administration has been sorely lacking up until now. He also acknowledged that at this point, our operations in Iraq must place far more emphasis on finding a political solution rather than continuing to place an undue burden on America's Armed Forces.

It is for these reasons that I hope that Dr. Gates will serve as a critical voice for reason, leading our forces toward a proper exit from major operations in Iraq and toward rebuilding our war-battered Armed Forces.

Dr. Gates seemed to discern the cost of the war in Iraq, which has been mainly measured in the number of lives lost and U.S. treasury spent. Over 2,900 brave American servicemembers have now been killed in Iraq and over $400 billion in appropriations have been approved by Congress.

But there is another cost of war--our military's readiness. And, apparently, unlike his presumed predecessor, who believes that ``you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want,'' Dr. Gates has promised to address this issue, if confirmed.

Some two-thirds of our Nation's combat brigades are currently unable to report for duty according to current reports, largely due to battle- worn and damaged equipment. Dr. Gates seems committed to restoring our military's readiness and, I hope, will be willing to fully meet the Army's request of $25 billion in fiscal year 2008 to fund the repair, replacement, and recapitalization of this gear.

I concede that on a previous occasion I withheld my support for Dr. Gates when he was nominated for the position of the Director of Central Intelligence in 1991. At the time, I raised concerns over his past tenure at the CIA, including prior allegations of politicized intelligence. By all accounts Mr. Gates did a credible job as the Director of the CIA. It is my hope that his past experience has sensitized him to the danger that politicized intelligence can pose to our Nation's national security and to the ability of our military commanders to understand and carry out the mission on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere as they seek to advance United States interests.

In addition, I am also hopeful that Mr. Gates will work with me to revisit the administration's military commissions policy. During our discussions, we talked about the bill that I introduced last month called the Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act of 2006 which addresses some of the most serious problems with the bill that the President recently signed into law. I hope that Dr. Gates will consult with outside military and legal experts, as well as J.A.G. staff regarding the Military Commissions Act. I would further urge Dr. Gates to halt the Defense Department's plan to award a $125 million contract to build a new courthouse at Guantanamo Bay, to try detainees. This project was neither authorized nor appropriated by the Congress, and in my view, constitutes an egregious waste and abuse of taxpayers dollars on a facility designed to circumvent public and legal scrutiny into the treatment and trying of detainees.

Our Nation and our Armed Forces are facing significant challenges, and, above all else, Dr. Gates needs to meet today's security concerns head on, swiftly and effectively, without any ideological agenda. Recognizing the hard truth, that we are not winning the war in Iraq, was a good first step.

Understanding why we aren't winning was a good second step. As Dr. Gates explained in his testimony, and as many of us have been saying for quite some time, we failed to deploy enough troops in Iraq to win the peace, we mistakenly disbanded the Iraqi Army, and we banned thousands of Baath Party members from working in the Iraqi Government. Only by recognizing and understanding that these specific policies have caused so much damage can we begin the work of ameliorating the situation in Iraq.

I look forward to working with Dr. Gates in a bipartisan and level- headed manner to address these myriad problems, to adjust United States policy in Iraq and to rebuild our Nation's Armed Forces. This fall, the American people voted for change in our Government's policies, particularly in Iraq, and I am hopeful that the confirmation of Dr. Gates will represent one of these many vital changes.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pediatric Medical Device Safety and Improvement Act of 2006. I want to begin by thanking Senator Mike DeWine for joining me in introducing this legislation and for his leadership on children's health. He has been my partner over the years as we fought to make drugs safer and more widely available for children. I believe the legislation we are introducing today will achieve a similar goal for pediatric medical devices. I would also like to especially thank the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Thoracic Society and the National Organization for Rare Disorders for their expertise in helping craft this legislation as well as their tireless support for making medical devices safer for use in children.

This legislation provides a comprehensive approach to ensuring that children are not left behind as cutting-edge research and revolutionary technologies for medical devices advance. Like drugs, where for too long children were treated like small adults and could just be given reduced doses of adult products, many essential medical devices used extensively by pediatricians are not designed or sized for children. In fact, the development of new medical devices suitable for children's smaller and growing bodies can lag 5 or 10 years behind those for adults.

While children and adults suffer from many of the same diseases and conditions, their device needs can vary considerably due to differences in size, rates of growth, critical development periods, anatomy, physiological differences such as breathing and heart rate, and physical activity levels. To date, because the pediatric market is so small and pediatric diseases relatively rare, there has been little incentive for device manufacturers to focus their attention on children. The result has been that pediatric providers must resort to ``jerry-rigging'' or fashioning make-shift device solutions for pediatric use. When that is not an option, providers may be forced to use more invasive treatment or less effective therapies.

For example, at present, left ventricular assist devices, LVADs, do not exist in the U.S. for children less than 5 years old. An LVAD is a mechanical pump that helps a heart that is too weak to pump blood through the body.

So infants and children under 5 years of age who have critical failure of their left or right ventricles have to be supported through extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, ECMO. An ECMO consists of a pump, an artificial lung, a blood warmer and an arterial filter, which is installed by inserting tubes into large veins or arteries located in the right side of the neck or the groin. While ECMOs can help children for short periods of time, they are problematic. They can cause dangerous clots and the blood thinners that prevent these clots may lead to internal bleeding. In addition, children must remain bedridden while using the device.

For young children needing to be on a ventilator to assist their breathing, the lack of non-invasive ventilators with masks that suitably fit babies has led to respiratory treatments that are inadequate or invasive treatment options such as placing a tube in the baby's throat.

Children needing prosthetic heart valves face a disproportionately high failure rate. Because of the biochemistry of children's growing bodies, prosthetic heart valves implanted in children calcify and deteriorate much faster than in adults. Typically, children with a heart valve implant who survive to adulthood will need four or five operations. Additionally, devices currently available for children must be better able to expand and grow as the child grows.

Over the past 2 years, several efforts have been launched to better identify barriers to the development of pediatric devices and to generate solutions for improving children's access to needed medical devices.

Beginning in June 2004, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, the National Organization for Rare Disorders, NORD, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, and the Advanced Medical Technology Association, AdvaMed, hosted a series of stakeholders meetings that yielded recommendations for improving the availability of pediatric devices. In October 2004, in response to a directive in the Medical Devices Technical Corrections Act of 2004, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, released a report that identified numerous barriers to the development and approval of devices for children. And in July 2005, the Institute of Medicine, IOM, issued a report on the adequacy of postmarket surveillance of pediatric medical devices, as mandated by the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002. The IOM found significant flaws in safety monitoring and recommended expanding the FDA's ability to require postmarket studies of certain products and improving public access to information about postmarket pediatric studies.

Our legislation seeks to address the equally important issues of pediatric medical device safety and availability. To begin with, the bill creates a mechanism to allow the FDA to track the number and types of medical devices approved specifically for children or for conditions that occur in children. It also allows the FDA to use adult data to support a determination of reasonable assurance of effectiveness in pediatric populations and to extrapolate data between pediatric subpopulations.

The market for pediatric medical devices simply isn't what it is for adults. Therefore, many device manufacturers have been reluctant to make devices for children. Our bill creates an incentive for companies by modifying the existing humanitarian device exemption, HDE, provision to allow manufacturers to profit from devices that are specifically designed to meet a pediatric need.

To prevent abuse, our bill reverts to current law which allows no profit on sales of devices that exceed the number estimated to be needed for the approved condition. This provision is modeled after the existing Orphan Products Division designation process. Under no circumstances can there be a profit on sales if the device is used to treat or diagnose diseases or conditions affecting more than 4,000 individuals in the U.S. per year which is the same as under current law. Already approved adult HDEs upon date of enactment are eligible for the HDE profit modification but only if they are meet the conditions of the bill. The lifting of the profit restriction for new pediatric HDEs sunsets in 2012 and FDA is required to issue a report on its impact within 5 years.

In order to encourage pediatric medical device research, our bill requires the National Institutes of Health, NIH, to designate a point of contact at the agency to help innovators and physicians access funding for pediatric medical device development. It also requires the NIH, the FDA, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, AHRQ, to submit a plan for pediatric medical device research that identifies gaps in such research and proposes a research agenda for addressing them. In identifying the gaps, the plan can include a survey of pediatric medical providers regarding unmet pediatric medical device needs.

To better foster innovation in the private sector, our bill establishes demonstration grants for non-profit consortia to promote pediatric device development, including matchmaking between inventors and manufacturers and federal resources. These demonstration grants which are authorized for $6 million annually require that the federal government mentor and help manage pediatric device projects through the development process, including product identification, prototype design, device development and marketing. Under the bill, grantees must coordinate with the NIH's pediatric devices point of contact to identify research issues that require further study and with the FDA to help facilitate approval of pediatric indications.

Finally, in its 2005 report on pediatric medical device safety, the IOM found serious flaws in the postmarket safety surveillance of these devices. Our legislation allows FDA to require postmarket studies as a condition of clearance for certain categories of devices. This includes ``a class II or class III device the failure of which would be reasonably likely to have serious adverse health consequences or is intended to be (1) implanted in the human body for more than one year, or (2) a life sustaining or life supporting device used outside a device user facility.''

The legislation also gives the FDA the ability to require studies longer than 3 years with respect to a device that is to have significant use in pediatric populations if such studies would be necessary to address longer term pediatric questions, such as the impact on growth and development. And, it establishes a publicly accessible database of postmarket study commitments that involve questions about device use in pediatric populations.

The legislation we are introducing today has been many years in the making. In addition to the lead republican bill sponsor, Senator DeWine, and the public health organizations I mentioned earlier, I would like to thank the Advanced Medical Technology Association and its member company Johnson & Johnson, for their contributions to this legislation. The bill we are introducing today reflects many of the comments and suggestions they provided through the development of this legislation. Several device manufacturers including Respironics, Seleon, Breas Medical AB, and Stryker have submitted letters of support for this legislation and I ask unanimous consent that their letters as well as the letters of all organizations supporting this bill be entered in the record following my remarks.

I look forward to working with patient groups, physicians, industry and my colleagues--including the chairman and ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Senators Enzi and Kennedy--to move this legislation next year when the committee considers medical device legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I am hopeful that it will become law as soon as possible.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pediatric Medical Device Safety and Improvement Act of 2006. I want to begin by thanking Senator Mike DeWine for joining me in introducing this legislation and for his leadership on children's health. He has been my partner over the years as we fought to make drugs safer and more widely available for children. I believe the legislation we are introducing today will achieve a similar goal for pediatric medical devices. I would also like to especially thank the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Thoracic Society and the National Organization for Rare Disorders for their expertise in helping craft this legislation as well as their tireless support for making medical devices safer for use in children.

This legislation provides a comprehensive approach to ensuring that children are not left behind as cutting-edge research and revolutionary technologies for medical devices advance. Like drugs, where for too long children were treated like small adults and could just be given reduced doses of adult products, many essential medical devices used extensively by pediatricians are not designed or sized for children. In fact, the development of new medical devices suitable for children's smaller and growing bodies can lag 5 or 10 years behind those for adults.

While children and adults suffer from many of the same diseases and conditions, their device needs can vary considerably due to differences in size, rates of growth, critical development periods, anatomy, physiological differences such as breathing and heart rate, and physical activity levels. To date, because the pediatric market is so small and pediatric diseases relatively rare, there has been little incentive for device manufacturers to focus their attention on children. The result has been that pediatric providers must resort to ``jerry-rigging'' or fashioning make-shift device solutions for pediatric use. When that is not an option, providers may be forced to use more invasive treatment or less effective therapies.

For example, at present, left ventricular assist devices, LVADs, do not exist in the U.S. for children less than 5 years old. An LVAD is a mechanical pump that helps a heart that is too weak to pump blood through the body.

So infants and children under 5 years of age who have critical failure of their left or right ventricles have to be supported through extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, ECMO. An ECMO consists of a pump, an artificial lung, a blood warmer and an arterial filter, which is installed by inserting tubes into large veins or arteries located in the right side of the neck or the groin. While ECMOs can help children for short periods of time, they are problematic. They can cause dangerous clots and the blood thinners that prevent these clots may lead to internal bleeding. In addition, children must remain bedridden while using the device.

For young children needing to be on a ventilator to assist their breathing, the lack of non-invasive ventilators with masks that suitably fit babies has led to respiratory treatments that are inadequate or invasive treatment options such as placing a tube in the baby's throat.

Children needing prosthetic heart valves face a disproportionately high failure rate. Because of the biochemistry of children's growing bodies, prosthetic heart valves implanted in children calcify and deteriorate much faster than in adults. Typically, children with a heart valve implant who survive to adulthood will need four or five operations. Additionally, devices currently available for children must be better able to expand and grow as the child grows.

Over the past 2 years, several efforts have been launched to better identify barriers to the development of pediatric devices and to generate solutions for improving children's access to needed medical devices.

Beginning in June 2004, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, the National Organization for Rare Disorders, NORD, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, and the Advanced Medical Technology Association, AdvaMed, hosted a series of stakeholders meetings that yielded recommendations for improving the availability of pediatric devices. In October 2004, in response to a directive in the Medical Devices Technical Corrections Act of 2004, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, released a report that identified numerous barriers to the development and approval of devices for children. And in July 2005, the Institute of Medicine, IOM, issued a report on the adequacy of postmarket surveillance of pediatric medical devices, as mandated by the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002. The IOM found significant flaws in safety monitoring and recommended expanding the FDA's ability to require postmarket studies of certain products and improving public access to information about postmarket pediatric studies.

Our legislation seeks to address the equally important issues of pediatric medical device safety and availability. To begin with, the bill creates a mechanism to allow the FDA to track the number and types of medical devices approved specifically for children or for conditions that occur in children. It also allows the FDA to use adult data to support a determination of reasonable assurance of effectiveness in pediatric populations and to extrapolate data between pediatric subpopulations.

The market for pediatric medical devices simply isn't what it is for adults. Therefore, many device manufacturers have been reluctant to make devices for children. Our bill creates an incentive for companies by modifying the existing humanitarian device exemption, HDE, provision to allow manufacturers to profit from devices that are specifically designed to meet a pediatric need.

To prevent abuse, our bill reverts to current law which allows no profit on sales of devices that exceed the number estimated to be needed for the approved condition. This provision is modeled after the existing Orphan Products Division designation process. Under no circumstances can there be a profit on sales if the device is used to treat or diagnose diseases or conditions affecting more than 4,000 individuals in the U.S. per year which is the same as under current law. Already approved adult HDEs upon date of enactment are eligible for the HDE profit modification but only if they are meet the conditions of the bill. The lifting of the profit restriction for new pediatric HDEs sunsets in 2012 and FDA is required to issue a report on its impact within 5 years.

In order to encourage pediatric medical device research, our bill requires the National Institutes of Health, NIH, to designate a point of contact at the agency to help innovators and physicians access funding for pediatric medical device development. It also requires the NIH, the FDA, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, AHRQ, to submit a plan for pediatric medical device research that identifies gaps in such research and proposes a research agenda for addressing them. In identifying the gaps, the plan can include a survey of pediatric medical providers regarding unmet pediatric medical device needs.

To better foster innovation in the private sector, our bill establishes demonstration grants for non-profit consortia to promote pediatric device development, including matchmaking between inventors and manufacturers and federal resources. These demonstration grants which are authorized for $6 million annually require that the federal government mentor and help manage pediatric device projects through the development process, including product identification, prototype design, device development and marketing. Under the bill, grantees must coordinate with the NIH's pediatric devices point of contact to identify research issues that require further study and with the FDA to help facilitate approval of pediatric indications.

Finally, in its 2005 report on pediatric medical device safety, the IOM found serious flaws in the postmarket safety surveillance of these devices. Our legislation allows FDA to require postmarket studies as a condition of clearance for certain categories of devices. This includes ``a class II or class III device the failure of which would be reasonably likely to have serious adverse health consequences or is intended to be (1) implanted in the human body for more than one year, or (2) a life sustaining or life supporting device used outside a device user facility.''

The legislation also gives the FDA the ability to require studies longer than 3 years with respect to a device that is to have significant use in pediatric populations if such studies would be necessary to address longer term pediatric questions, such as the impact on growth and development. And, it establishes a publicly accessible database of postmarket study commitments that involve questions about device use in pediatric populations.

The legislation we are introducing today has been many years in the making. In addition to the lead republican bill sponsor, Senator DeWine, and the public health organizations I mentioned earlier, I would like to thank the Advanced Medical Technology Association and its member company Johnson & Johnson, for their contributions to this legislation. The bill we are introducing today reflects many of the comments and suggestions they provided through the development of this legislation. Several device manufacturers including Respironics, Seleon, Breas Medical AB, and Stryker have submitted letters of support for this legislation and I ask unanimous consent that their letters as well as the letters of all organizations supporting this bill be entered in the record following my remarks.

I look forward to working with patient groups, physicians, industry and my colleagues--including the chairman and ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Senators Enzi and Kennedy--to move this legislation next year when the committee considers medical device legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I am hopeful that it will become law as soon as possible.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in full support of S. 3709. The passage of this bill and the ultimate conclusion of the U.S.-India nuclear agreement will be instrumental in bringing our countries closer together after decades of estrangement. This outcome is not just desirable but essential for U.S. national interests.

It is hard to overemphasize the importance of India's role in the world today. Not only is India one of the most populous countries and fastest growing economies in the world, it is also the world's largest democracy that has long demonstrated a commitment to pluralism and rule of law and a rich intellectual and civilization heritage.

I applaud the efforts of both the Clinton and Bush administration in strengthening our ties with India. Their efforts reflect the bipartisan spirit with which America extends its hand of friendship to India and the importance that it places in getting this relationship right.

The U.S.-India nuclear deal significantly benefits both our countries. It will help India meet its growing energy needs, fueling its economic growth and reducing the global demand and cost of fossil fuels. It will enhance U.S.-Indian technological and commercial cooperation with significant dividends for U.S. companies. And it will bolster our strategic partnership with India in Asia and beyond.

It also opens the window for greater oversight over India's civil nuclear program, drawing an important non-signatory to the Nonproliferation Treaty into the broader nonproliferation system. This is a positive step for the U.S. in controlling the spread of nuclear materials and weapons and gaining an important ally in that fight.

But the flip side of this coin is that we are doing business with a non-nuclear weapon state as defined by the NPT that does not have full- scope safeguards.

In doing so, the U.S. has overstepped domestic and international non- proliferation laws and norms. It has sent a signal that countries can pursue and test nuclear weapons, as India did in 1998, and wear out U.S. opposition. And it may trigger a low-level arms race between India and Pakistan as India's uranium reserves are freed up for diversion to its weapons program.

Moreover, at a time when we are trying to roll back North Korea and Iran's nuclear program, cutting a deal with India suggests that if you are on America's side, you can keep your nuclear weapons. Such double standards are detrimental to America's interests and image.

What we ultimately need is not a country-specific approach to civil nuclear cooperation but a criteria-specific one. India has agreed to meet some of these criteria but not all. Its nonproliferation record is infinitely better than that of its neighbors, but far from perfect.

For now, the bill that is before the Senate carves out an exception for India. As I said earlier, I will vote for this bill because I think our relationship with India is critical.

It is also important to highlight what should be one vital outgrowth of this relationship: halting the global production of fissile material that can be used in a nuclear device.

S. 3709 calls for U.S.-Indian cooperation in pursuit of a multilateral fissile material cutoff treaty. However, the reality is that negotiations on such a treaty at the Geneva Conference on Disarmament have long been at a standstill due to many factors. These include linkages that countries have imposed with issues such as the militarization of space.

The proliferation dangers of increased fissile material stockpiles are well understood. Yet the current approach has failed to stop production.

That is why the United States needs to sit down with India and the other key handful of countries that have produced and are producing fissile material, and make a hard push for an interim non- discriminatory moratorium on fissile material production that is applicable to this grouping of states. This moratorium would remain in effect pending the entry into force of a multilateral treaty.

The advantage of this new format is that it allows for a smaller, more relevant grouping with a singular agenda where the U.S. can immediately introduce proposals it has already drafted for discussion.

If we are to seriously address the nuclear challenges we face today, we need to break the deadlock in Geneva, think outside the box and focus on this issue like a laser beam. We simply cannot have countries churning out fissile material because it increases the chances of it falling into the hands of terrorists and the buildup of nuclear arsenals.

In this bill, the Senate calls for the President to make several determinations on whether India has taken certain steps before we can proceed with an agreement. The Senate must also set certain benchmarks for our own government and ensure that it is upholding its responsibilities as a global leader and a nuclear weapon state.

I can think of no better way of doing this than calling for fresh and meaningful negotiations on halting fissile material production. Moving in this direction will strengthen the U.S.-India nuclear deal and make it a catalyst for positive change in the nonproliferation system.

In the end, the goal should be a strong U.S. India relationship and a nuclear deal that provides momentum toward strengthening the nuclear nonproliferation system.

Mr. President: I rise to introduce the Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act of 2006. This legislation would make critically important changes to the measure that Congress narrowly approved on September 29, the Mi1itary Commissions Act of 2006. Let me be clear from the outset of my remarks. I will take a backseat to no one when it comes to defending our country against terrorism. I fully support the use of military commissions to protect U.S. intelligence and expedite judicial proceedings vital to military action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Unlike the Administration, I trust the United States military and our legal system to arbitrate decisions related to enemy combatants.

I strongly believe that terrorists who seek to destroy America must be punished for any wrongs they commit against this country. But in my view, in order to sustain America's moral authority and win a lasting victory against our enemies, such punishment must be meted out only in accordance with the rule of law.

My legislation provides essential legal tools for our war on terror in seven key ways: 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 who are not lawful combatants. It prevents the use of evidence in court gained through the unreliable and immoral practices of torture and coercion. 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. Finally, it provides for expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionality of its provisions.

Before I elaborate on each of these critical points, let me simply underscore the point that for more than 200 years, our Nation has served as a shining example in its promotion of civil and human rights throughout the world. Denial of basic legal proceedings to individuals held in the custody of the United States has raised questions over our basic adherence to the U.S. Constitution and also diminished our reputation around the world. American citizens are questioning their own government's judgments, terrorists are citing American abuses to recruit new loyalists, and American servicemembers fear detention overseas under similarly abusive conditions in violation of their human rights.

Supporters of the administration's law may say that to speak out against its enactment is being soft on terrorism. Not only is this sentiment wholly inaccurate, it underestimates a fundamental strength of our Nation and the best defense against terrorists--respect for the rule of law.

For instance, the administration-backed law eliminates the principle of habeas corpus which has served as the backbone of common law since before the Magna Carta in the 13th century. Under the writ of habeas corpus independent courts may review the legality of custody decisions. My legislation would restore this basic tenet in the context of military commissions.

The administration's approach allows the President to remove anyone he so chooses from America's standard jurisprudence and designate him or her as an ``unlawful enemy combatant'' if he has engaged in hostilities or supported hostilities against the United States. Such individuals are subject to arrest and detention indefinitely without charge. In contrast, my legislation allows the designation of ``unlawful enemy combatants'' only for those individuals engaged in armed conflict against the United States. This provision seeks to curtail potential abuse of the enemy combatant designation so that holding individuals in detention indefinitely without a trial will prove

to be the exception rather than the norm.

Also, unlike the law backed by the administration, my bill further promotes humane treatment of military personnel by prohibiting the use of evidence gained by coercion in a trial. Such a provision is critically important for two reasons. First, the use of torture has been proven ineffective in interrogations when a detainee simply says what he believes an interrogator wants to hear in order to stop the torture. Second it deprives foreign militaries the ability to cite U.S. actions to justify their own misconduct toward future American POWs.

My bill grants discretion to military judges to exclude hearsay evidence determined to be unreliable. Under my legislation, judges are given 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 the U.S. military legal system. Moreover, my bill properly grants the Armed Forces judicial review of these decisions unlike the administration's law which denies the United States Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces the right to hearing military commission appeals.

And, just as important as restoring our commitment in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, my legislation would also reaffirm America's commitment to the contents of the Geneva Conventions. In contrast, the Administration's Military Commissions Act gives unprecedented authority to the president to define what interrogation techniques constitute ``grave breaches'' of the Geneva Conventions. The United States President should not have the right to unilaterally define the legal boundaries of torture. The United States Congress has ratified universally recognized conventions prohibiting such conduct, and the President should recognize them as the law of the land. Indeed, there is a lesson to be learned in the events of the last 6 years, particularly in the case of Abu Ghraib, when not only was our Nation's reputation tarnished, but our commitment to the rule of law was credibly called into question. This is not the America our Nation's greatest generations have long fought for. Our country would have been better served if we had looked to the pages of history to guide us through this national crisis.

Just 60 years ago, the United States confronted the daunting task of bringing history's most despicable war criminals to justice. In determining how to deal with Nazi leaders guilty of grave atrocities, our country never forgot its pivotal role as the leader of the free world. There were strong and persuasive voices crying for the execution of these men who had commanded, with ruthless efficiency, the slaughter of 6 million innocent Jews and 5 million other innocent men, women, and children. Why should these men who had extinguished so many lives be given a trial at all? Why should they not be subjected to the same fate to which they had subjected countless innocent people? Why not just shoot them, as Winston Churchill wanted? Why not just give in to legal scholars, who said there was no court, no judge, no laws, and no precedent?

Why not? Because, as I have recounted on this floor on several occasions, America has always stood for something more. Our leaders at Nuremberg, including the young prosecutor Thomas Dodd, my father, rejected the certainty of execution for the uncertainty of a trial. In doing so, we reaffirmed the ideal that this Nation should never tailor its eternal principles to the conflict of the moment, because if we did, we would be walking in the footsteps of the enemies we despised.

Almost 60 years to the day after the Nuremberg verdicts, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, with the support of the administration which steps away from the high principles established at Nuremberg and honored in the decades since. In my view, this law has dishonored our Nation's proud history.

Indeed, to watch the Senate, on the anniversary of Nuremberg, negate these great principles and traditions was one of the saddest days I have seen in a quarter century of service in this body. It pains me to no end to have seen the administration and its allies rush this bill through Congress in the days before an election with hopes of exploiting Americans' fears of a terrorist attack. This administration would have the American people believe that the war on terror requires a choice between protecting America from terrorism and upholding the basic tenets upon which our country was founded--but not both. This canard is untrue and frankly negligent.

I believe that the United States Congress made a crucial mistake. And that is why the final provision in my bill is perhaps the most important one--it will ensure that each of the provisions of the administration's Military Commission Act is quickly reviewed by our Nation's courts, and appropriately evaluated for their constitutionality. I do not pretend to have all the answers regarding the legality and probity of this highly controversial statute. But I believe it is essential for America's security and moral authority to allow those best qualified to make these judgments--members of our esteemed judiciary--to have an opportunity to overturn the most egregious provisions of this Act.

In turn, we in Congress have our own obligation, to work in a bipartisan way to repair the damage that has been done, to protect our international reputation, to preserve our domestic traditions, and to provide a successful mechanism to improve and enhance the tools required by the global war on terror.

I urge my colleagues to consider the consequences if we fail to correct the mistakes that have been made. I hope that Congress and the administration will take a serious look at my proposal and work with me to improve the current system, for the sake of our security, our international standing, and our commitment to the rule of law.

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

There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. President: I rise to introduce the Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act of 2006. This legislation would make critically important changes to the measure that Congress narrowly approved on September 29, the Mi1itary Commissions Act of 2006. Let me be clear from the outset of my remarks. I will take a backseat to no one when it comes to defending our country against terrorism. I fully support the use of military commissions to protect U.S. intelligence and expedite judicial proceedings vital to military action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Unlike the Administration, I trust the United States military and our legal system to arbitrate decisions related to enemy combatants.

I strongly believe that terrorists who seek to destroy America must be punished for any wrongs they commit against this country. But in my view, in order to sustain America's moral authority and win a lasting victory against our enemies, such punishment must be meted out only in accordance with the rule of law.

My legislation provides essential legal tools for our war on terror in seven key ways: 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 who are not lawful combatants. It prevents the use of evidence in court gained through the unreliable and immoral practices of torture and coercion. 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. Finally, it provides for expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionality of its provisions.

Before I elaborate on each of these critical points, let me simply underscore the point that for more than 200 years, our Nation has served as a shining example in its promotion of civil and human rights throughout the world. Denial of basic legal proceedings to individuals held in the custody of the United States has raised questions over our basic adherence to the U.S. Constitution and also diminished our reputation around the world. American citizens are questioning their own government's judgments, terrorists are citing American abuses to recruit new loyalists, and American servicemembers fear detention overseas under similarly abusive conditions in violation of their human rights.

Supporters of the administration's law may say that to speak out against its enactment is being soft on terrorism. Not only is this sentiment wholly inaccurate, it underestimates a fundamental strength of our Nation and the best defense against terrorists--respect for the rule of law.

For instance, the administration-backed law eliminates the principle of habeas corpus which has served as the backbone of common law since before the Magna Carta in the 13th century. Under the writ of habeas corpus independent courts may review the legality of custody decisions. My legislation would restore this basic tenet in the context of military commissions.

The administration's approach allows the President to remove anyone he so chooses from America's standard jurisprudence and designate him or her as an ``unlawful enemy combatant'' if he has engaged in hostilities or supported hostilities against the United States. Such individuals are subject to arrest and detention indefinitely without charge. In contrast, my legislation allows the designation of ``unlawful enemy combatants'' only for those individuals engaged in armed conflict against the United States. This provision seeks to curtail potential abuse of the enemy combatant designation so that holding individuals in detention indefinitely without a trial will prove

to be the exception rather than the norm.

Also, unlike the law backed by the administration, my bill further promotes humane treatment of military personnel by prohibiting the use of evidence gained by coercion in a trial. Such a provision is critically important for two reasons. First, the use of torture has been proven ineffective in interrogations when a detainee simply says what he believes an interrogator wants to hear in order to stop the torture. Second it deprives foreign militaries the ability to cite U.S. actions to justify their own misconduct toward future American POWs.

My bill grants discretion to military judges to exclude hearsay evidence determined to be unreliable. Under my legislation, judges are given 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 the U.S. military legal system. Moreover, my bill properly grants the Armed Forces judicial review of these decisions unlike the administration's law which denies the United States Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces the right to hearing military commission appeals.

And, just as important as restoring our commitment in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, my legislation would also reaffirm America's commitment to the contents of the Geneva Conventions. In contrast, the Administration's Military Commissions Act gives unprecedented authority to the president to define what interrogation techniques constitute ``grave breaches'' of the Geneva Conventions. The United States President should not have the right to unilaterally define the legal boundaries of torture. The United States Congress has ratified universally recognized conventions prohibiting such conduct, and the President should recognize them as the law of the land. Indeed, there is a lesson to be learned in the events of the last 6 years, particularly in the case of Abu Ghraib, when not only was our Nation's reputation tarnished, but our commitment to the rule of law was credibly called into question. This is not the America our Nation's greatest generations have long fought for. Our country would have been better served if we had looked to the pages of history to guide us through this national crisis.

Just 60 years ago, the United States confronted the daunting task of bringing history's most despicable war criminals to justice. In determining how to deal with Nazi leaders guilty of grave atrocities, our country never forgot its pivotal role as the leader of the free world. There were strong and persuasive voices crying for the execution of these men who had commanded, with ruthless efficiency, the slaughter of 6 million innocent Jews and 5 million other innocent men, women, and children. Why should these men who had extinguished so many lives be given a trial at all? Why should they not be subjected to the same fate to which they had subjected countless innocent people? Why not just shoot them, as Winston Churchill wanted? Why not just give in to legal scholars, who said there was no court, no judge, no laws, and no precedent?

Why not? Because, as I have recounted on this floor on several occasions, America has always stood for something more. Our leaders at Nuremberg, including the young prosecutor Thomas Dodd, my father, rejected the certainty of execution for the uncertainty of a trial. In doing so, we reaffirmed the ideal that this Nation should never tailor its eternal principles to the conflict of the moment, because if we did, we would be walking in the footsteps of the enemies we despised.

Almost 60 years to the day after the Nuremberg verdicts, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, with the support of the administration which steps away from the high principles established at Nuremberg and honored in the decades since. In my view, this law has dishonored our Nation's proud history.

Indeed, to watch the Senate, on the anniversary of Nuremberg, negate these great principles and traditions was one of the saddest days I have seen in a quarter century of service in this body. It pains me to no end to have seen the administration and its allies rush this bill through Congress in the days before an election with hopes of exploiting Americans' fears of a terrorist attack. This administration would have the American people believe that the war on terror requires a choice between protecting America from terrorism and upholding the basic tenets upon which our country was founded--but not both. This canard is untrue and frankly negligent.

I believe that the United States Congress made a crucial mistake. And that is why the final provision in my bill is perhaps the most important one--it will ensure that each of the provisions of the administration's Military Commission Act is quickly reviewed by our Nation's courts, and appropriately evaluated for their constitutionality. I do not pretend to have all the answers regarding the legality and probity of this highly controversial statute. But I believe it is essential for America's security and moral authority to allow those best qualified to make these judgments--members of our esteemed judiciary--to have an opportunity to overturn the most egregious provisions of this Act.

In turn, we in Congress have our own obligation, to work in a bipartisan way to repair the damage that has been done, to protect our international reputation, to preserve our domestic traditions, and to provide a successful mechanism to improve and enhance the tools required by the global war on terror.

I urge my colleagues to consider the consequences if we fail to correct the mistakes that have been made. I hope that Congress and the administration will take a serious look at my proposal and work with me to improve the current system, for the sake of our security, our international standing, and our commitment to the rule of law.

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

There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

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

Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I may request to speak for a few more minutes than 5, and when the time comes, I will so inform the Chair.

Last week the American people went to the polls across our great Nation. They went not simply to choose new political leaders, but to ask those leaders--Democrats and Republicans alike--to work together for a new and long-overdue direction in Iraq.

There is no doubt that the majority of American voters want change in an Iraq policy that has brought such death and chaos and the prospect of failure. There is no doubt that they want us to speak honestly about the current failures and boldly about the way through the present crisis. But it is also very clear that Americans are not defeatists. They want success in Iraq, they want our troops to succeed, and they want them to come home.

I note as I speak here there are hearings occurring in the Armed Services Committee. I commend Senator Warner and Senator Levin for holding such a hearing. They heard this morning from some of our leading military figures. This afternoon there will be additional witnesses appearing before them. So I am very conscious that a lot of people are thinking about this issue now and that we hope to come up with some positive suggestions on how we might come to a successful conclusion of this policy--a policy, I might add, that is in deep jeopardy of failure.

In that respect, the message of the American people was one of hope: that years of strained, painful debate can give way to American pragmatism; that leaders can find in national security not a political cudgel but a political consensus; and that Iraq, even now, is not past salvaging, if we right our course immediately.

I hope the resignation of Secretary Rumsfeld is a sign that the White House has heard that message. But I would add very quickly that it is not enough to change the leadership at the Pentagon when a week ago Sunday the Vice President of the United States proclaimed that we intend to go, and I quote him, ``full-speed ahead'' in Iraq. The President must fundamentally change our Iraq policies if we are to reverse the downward spiral into chaos that threatens the territorial integrity of that country and our larger regional security interests-- as well as the success of our war on al-Qaida and international terrorism.

In the midst of an election season, some of America's best foreign policy minds were working diligently to find that new direction. We are lucky to have two distinguished former public servants to chair the Study Group on Iraq: the former Secretary of State James Baker and the former Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, Lee Hamilton. Their group of experts is striving diligently to find consensus on a set of policy recommendations to put before the President and the Congress of the United States. It is painful work, but it is necessary work. And the tragedy of Iraq--over 30,000 injured troops, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead, more than 2,800 of our fellow citizens in uniform killed--the tragedy of Iraq demands nothing less than a new direction and some new thought.

It will take every dram of our honesty and pragmatism to turn around a society that--despite $400 billion of taxpayer money, $250 million every single day and still counting--remains broken, crippled, and fractured. The Iraqi economy is in worse shape today than it was in March of 2003. Electric and water treatment capacity, oil production, access to clean water, are all below prewar levels. America has spent $14 billion training and equipping 300,000 Iraqi police and security forces; yet today as I speak on the floor of this Chamber, some 23 separate sectarian militias alone operate with impunity throughout Baghdad. Sectarian killings continue largely unabated, averaging scores of deaths a day.

These realities mean that none of us should underestimate the difficulties ahead. We need to recognize--every single time we talk about this matter--the remarkable service being performed by our men and women in uniform. Theirs is a very difficult job. Anyone who has been there, regardless of his or her views on policy, has to admire immensely the courage and determination of these people as they go out every single day, facing the kinds of problems that are everywhere in the streets of Baghdad, Fallujah, and other major urban areas. So I do not underestimate the tremendous burden these people bear every single day, as too often they become nothing more than target practice for those who seek to gain the upper hand in Iraq.

Nor do I underestimate the difficult task facing Jim Baker, Lee Hamilton, and their colleagues on this task force that is determined to find some answers to Iraq. They know, as I do, if there were any easy solutions we would have discovered them by now. It may be that members of the Baker-Hamilton commission will not be able to arrive at a consensus. I hope that is not the case. But I have no doubt that their efforts are taking place in a constructive and bipartisan spirit and we here should do everything we can to follow their example in the weeks and months ahead.

I hope to add briefly to that debate by sharing some of my own thoughts this afternoon. Taken individually, none of these proposals that I am going to discuss are groundbreaking or earthshattering in any way. A sound foreign policy rarely is. But after a war sparked by ideology and grand theorizing, maybe we can once more learn the value of quiet virtues. Taken together, I believe these suggestions might help to reverse the ongoing spiral into violence and chaos, permit the phased redeployment of U.S. troops within and from Iraq, and secure America's regional interests to the greatest extent.

Clearly, our interests are in disrepair, and other regions cry out for attention. We are further away from stabilizing Afghanistan and dealing a mortal blow to our al-Qaida and Taliban enemies. In fact, drug traffickers and

tribal warfare now threaten to destroy the fragile foundation of Afghanistan's nascent democracy and the Taliban is stronger now than at any point since our invasion.

This summer an emboldened and defiant Iran launched a proxy war against our ally Israel; and the apocalyptic mullahs are undeterred in their pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Last month North Korea claimed to have tested a nuclear weapon of its own, a further example of our country's growing vulnerabilities, a further cost of this administration's fixation on Iraq. While we have been bogged down in that country, North Korea has taken the chance to expand its nuclear arsenal fivefold.

Al-Qaida, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea--the conclusion is irrefutable: America is less safe today because of our Iraq diversion. That is precisely why so many voices among our civilian and military leadership are calling upon the President to change course in that country.

I believe there are five key ingredients to any course change that we must take: establishment of internal security in that country; phased redeployment of United States forces; continued training of an independent, professional military and security force for Iraq; a strong central government; and regional and international engagement.

Let me first talk briefly about security. I think we must continue to recruit and train forces that reflect Iraq's ethnic diversity, forces that are capable of neutralizing sectarian militias and are able to restore and maintain domestic stability. Without that, nothing is likely to happen. But I believe the hour has arrived when Iraq must assume the responsibility for policing itself. At great cost, the United States has given the Iraqi people the chance for a much brighter future. Now they must seize it. There is not a treasury deep enough nor an army large enough to achieve this goal if the Iraqi people themselves lack the will to achieve it for themselves.

Second, redeployment. ``More troops or fewer troops'' is a sterile debate. The reality is that in cities such as Baghdad and Falluja, our soldiers are going door to door like a police force on the front lines of religious violence, and they need to be removed from that fruitless exercise. Our troops should be relocated from these larger urban zones to less populated regions and border areas where they can more effectively advance our strategic interests: continued training of Iraqi forces and the protection of Iraq's territorial integrity until Iraqis can do so for themselves.

Remaining United States forces should be repositioned to United States bases in Kuwait and Qatar, where they could be available to protect American interests if they should be called upon, and to Afghanistan, where we must redouble our efforts to capture bin Laden, dismantle al-Qaida and neutralize the Taliban and the drug lords who are funding them.

These movements must begin immediately and continue over the next 12 to 18 months, in concert with our efforts to enhance the stability of the Iraqi Government, engage Iraq's neighbors, and build a better and more secure life for the people of that country.

Third is professional military and security forces. Iraq will never be unified as a sovereign and secure nation until all of its citizens can count on the Iraqi forces to be capable of maintaining internal stability and protecting the nation's territorial integrity. But no Iraqi Army can ever meaningfully stand up when Iraq's political atmosphere remains so poisonous.

Which leads me to my fourth point, unity government. Our commanding generals have rightly concluded there is no military solution to Iraq's unfolding civil conflict. Only a political solution which unifies all Iraqis around a common cause will save Iraq from becoming a failed state.

So, along with the training of Iraqi troops, I believe we must tackle Iraq's political chaos, because only stability will be the cornerstone of a prosperous nation.

Finding common cause must come first and foremost from within Iraq. It must come from Iraq's secular and religious leaders, leaders such as Ayatollah Sistani. We need Iraqis like him at the table and the United States needs to encourage more acts of leadership by him and others.

Our political goals for Iraq are clear. Though Iraq's constitution is federal, with local flexibility for provinces, we must insist on a stable and unified central government, capable of distributing resources to its citizens on a just basis. Iraq's oil must be shared equitably. At the end of the day, Iraq may end up a divided and partitioned state where sectarian influences govern; but that should not be our stated policy. Nor should we allow short-term political expediency to keep us from disbanding sectarian militias. Our failure to confront them head-on forces uncountable Iraqis to live in daily fear for their very lives.

That said, I believe we should not preclude the possibility of integrating ex-militia members into the professional Iraqi military-- but only if they be vetted and retrained first.

Fifth and finally, regional and international engagement. Iraq's neighbors have a huge stake in a stable and competent Iraq. If there is one thing that unites all of the nations bordering Iraq, it is the fear that Iraq will splinter into fractured enclaves with dedicated sectarian militias that will not only terrorize each other but threaten the stability of the nations that border them.

It is for that reason that the administration should find willing partners--if it were willing to look. Iraq's neighbors, as well as regional international organizations can help Iraq toward unity and stability--not from the goodness of their hearts but from the fact of their interest. Regional powers such as Turkey, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia could be enormously useful to us as mediators--a ``Friends of Iraq'' group, committed to ensuring the integrity of its borders, the disbanding of the militias, and the unity of its government.

When it comes to protecting our security, we must be as willing to wage diplomacy as we have been willing to wage war. Robust, muscular, and direct negotiations are not gifts to our enemies. They are the essential tools of avoiding conflict and securing peace and stability.

We are reminded of the eloquence of John Kennedy, who said many years ago, ``Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.''

Further, rebuilding Iraq's economy should be a part of any regional and international rescue mission. The Iraqi Government has formally requested help from the United States to develop an International Compact for Iraq. This compact could serve as a blueprint for a new partnership with the international community, one aimed at consolidating peace and pursuing political, social, and economic development over the next five years.

There are no guarantees, of course. Iraq is broken. The policies of the Bush administration, in my view, have sadly failed. But last week's elections have given us the gift of opportunity--to chart a new course in Iraq if we are honest enough, tough enough, and bold enough to find it.

Reducing and withdrawing our troop presence. Restoring security. Supporting the development of a unified Iraqi Government. Enlisting Iraq's neighbors and the international community. Creating economic activity in that shattered country. If we take these steps, or ones like them, we can serve our larger interests in peace and prosperity and security, not only for the Iraqis but, as importantly, for ourselves. We can begin to redeem a great harm.

The American voters have asked this us of us. While they don't have a specific plan in mind, they want us to come together, to chart a new course, to make some sense, to be rational and think about the importance not only of Iraq getting on its feet--but of our nation meriting its vital role in the world. No other nation in the 21st century is going to lead but this great nation of ours. Other nations down the road may assume that responsibility, but as far as I can see, only one nation can lead now--and it is ours. And if we continue on the path we are following today in Iraq, that mission will be far more difficult to fulfill.

So far more is at risk here than just what happens in Iraq. We risk failing the calling of leadership itself.

Anything I suggested here, I know others have raised. But I came here today, above all, to ask a question:

Who is thinking about this in a concrete way? I trust that Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton are. I hope that my colleagues are.

You may not like all of my ideas. You may reject all of them. But whatever ideas come to the fore, let us debate the substance in tolerance and good faith, open to new thinking and hungering for new action.

The American people are watching us, wondering if we have heard their call for a new way forward. The Iraqi people are watching us, wondering if their united country can still survive and succeed. Americans and Iraqis both want what it is within our power to give them: hope.

Again, I thank the President for his indulgence in providing a little more time.

I yield the floor.