Floor Statements

Mr. President, let me begin, if I may, by once again commending our colleague from Massachusetts for his leadership on this issue. Over the years, no one has been a stronger champion, a louder voice, a stronger voice on behalf of the most disadvantaged in our society than the senior Senator from Massachusetts. Once again he is proving that point with this amendment he has offered. Frankly, as I recall in years past, increases in the minimum wage were the ones that were endorsed by both parties. I am old enough to remember when an increase in the minimum wage would have occurred in far less time than 9 or 10 years.

Nearly a decade has elapsed since the last increase. I am sure my colleague from Massachusetts can tell me on the average, it was probably every 2 or 3 or 4 years that the increase would occur. When it did, when the proposal was offered and it was worked out between the two parties, it went through almost unanimously if not unanimously. But here we are. This is an indication of what has happened in our beloved country over the last number of years.

Nearly 37 million of our fellow citizens, including 13 million children are currently living at or below the poverty level in the United States. Yet we somehow cannot find ways among ourselves here to reach a consensus to increase the minimum wage to $7.25 over the next 2 years--a $2.10 increase.

I find that rather shocking. I suppose it is an indication of what has happened to the body politic in this country, that you cannot find common ground to make a difference in the lives of almost 40 million of our fellow citizens.

These Americans are struggling out there every single day and as I mentioned earlier, 13 million of them are totally defenseless--our children. Certainly, while Members of Congress may find it odd, the average citizen out there, even those who are making way beyond the minimum wage, were they here tonight in this Chamber, would tell you how difficult it is to meet the rising cost of living--food, housing, clothing--not to mention soaring energy costs. Yet in the midst of all of that, we find it impossible to provide an increase, after nearly a decade, of $2.10 per hour for these families in our country.

I am happy to yield to my colleague from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, I say to my colleague, if he will yield back, I couldn't agree with him more. This is one of the great myths about the minimum wage increase. You will hear over and over again; in fact, we have heard it here already today: If you increase the minimum wage, this hurts business. This makes it more difficult to hire people, to employ people.

I found it rather interesting that in surveys done among the business community, particularly the small business community, 86 percent of small business owners do not think the minimum wage affects their business.

The Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely correct that raising children out of poverty is directly related to the ability of their parents to provide for them.

Again, it should not take lecturing here to my colleagues in this great body to make the case, in the 21st century, that we are going to have to have the best prepared, best educated, healthiest generation we can produce if we are going to remain competitive in a global economy. When you have 13 million of your children growing up in poverty, how are these children going to effectively compete? How are they going to be well educated? How are they going to be healthy enough not only to be good parents themselves, but good workers, and good citizens?

It seems axiomatic. It should be understood on its face. If we continue on the road we are traveling, with the number of children in our country growing up in poverty increasing, it is going to make it more difficult for our country to compete in the 21st century.

There is a graph here which I know the Senator has seen, but it makes the case of what is happening. The United States has the highest child poverty rate in the industrialized world: Denmark, Sweden, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Japan, Canada, U.K., Italy. All of these countries, major competitors in the world, do a far better job seeing to it that their children are better prepared to meet those challenges.

Our future is lagging behind when a substantial number of children are growing up, in our great country, in poverty. This is through no fault of their own. It is through the accident of birth, being born into a family where their parents are struggling to earn a decent wage and make ends meet. These are working families, by the way. These are not families collecting subsistence or some kind of charity. They are out there working, earning an income that does not allow them to meet the basic necessities of life.

I am glad to yield to my colleague.

I thank my colleague for bringing up this chart to emphasize the point. I think these numbers are from the Department of Agriculture.

Again, the Senator is making an excellent point. If you have a hard time understanding what the Senator from Massachusetts is saying or the Senator from Connecticut, ask any teacher. Ask any teacher in this country, particularly at the elementary school level, what sort of academic performance, what sort of attention spans you have with a child who has received adequate nutrition, a decent meal, compared to those who have not. You will hear anecdote after anecdote of what happens with children who do not have proper nutrition--not to mention the growing health care problems that can emerge.

This is just good, sound investment policy. If you really care about the future of your country, if you really care about whether or not our Nation's children are going to be able to perform adequately in this century, then clearly making sure that they have the basic essentials is, again, so obvious that it should not require a debate on the floor of the Senate to make the point.

Yes.

It is not surprising but it is worthy of being repeated.

Ninety-four percent of our fellow citizens across this country, regardless of geography and economic circumstance, of gender, ethnicity, whatever the differences may be, agree with the following quotation: People who work should be able to feed their families. Ninety-four percent subscribe to that notion.

The Senator from Massachusetts is talking about working families. Our fellow citizens believe that if you are a working family, you should be able to make enough money to feed your family.

This is the United States of America. This is not some Third or Fourth World country we are talking about. Yet with 37 million of our fellow citizens, adults and children, unable to meet the requirements of basic food and nutrition, it ought to stun everyone in our country.

What we are trying to do is make it possible for these people who are working hard to be able to provide for their families. That is all we are talking about.

I point out to colleagues who have offered an alternative to this proposal, that a $1.10 per hour increase to $6.25 per hour over the next 2 years, means that millions of children would be left behind.

What the Senator from Massachusetts is offering--with a bipartisan group of support, we hope--is a $2.10 per hour increase to provide for the needs of working families. What the Senator from Massachusetts has laid out I couldn't agree more with him. If you are truly interested in making a difference in this country, that extra $1 per hour could make a huge difference in the ability of these families to make ends meet.

Among full-time, year-round workers, poverty has increased by 50 percent since the 1970s. Minimum wage employees working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year are earning $10,700 a year. That is almost $6,000 below the Federal poverty guidelines of $16,600 for a family of three-- $6,000 less than you ought to be able to have if you are going to meet the poverty guidelines.

Here we are in the 21st century, and the minimum wage is losing its value as well. Since the minimum wage was last raised nearly 10 years ago, its real value has eroded by 20 percent. Minimum wage workers have already lost all of the gains from the 1996-1997 increase.

Today, the real value of the minimum wage is more than $4 below what it was in 1968. To have the purchasing power it had in 1968, the minimum wage would have to be more than $9.25 per hour--not the $5.15 we are currently at.

I want to make a point as well about what the impact of this minimum wage increase would have on the lives of working families.

Nearly 15 million Americans would benefit from the minimum wage increase to $7.25 per hour. That is 6.6 million people directly affected in a positive way and another 8.3 million affected indirectly. Almost 60 percent of these workers are women, and 40 percent are people of color. Eighty percent of those who would benefit are adult workers, not teenagers seeking pocket change, as some have said, and more than a third of these are adults are the sole providers for their families.

Again, we are talking about an increase to $7.25 per hour, which is still hardly enough to make ends meet when you consider the cost of food, clothing, housing, not to mention the skyrocketing cost of energy that has hit everybody in this country. We all know how hard it is to provide for our families.

If you raise the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour, it would mean an additional $4,400 a year. That additional money would be enough for a low-income family of three to buy 15 months of groceries which they couldn't otherwise get, 19 months of utilities which they would not otherwise be able to afford, 8 months of rent, over 2 years of health care, 20 months of child care, 30 months of college tuition at a public 2-year college. Consider those numbers--20 months of child care that these working families need if they are going to keep their jobs and keep their children safe, not to mention 30 months of college tuition. It may not seem like much, but it is important.

In 10 years, the person earning minimum wage has received no pay increases, unless they have been lucky enough to live in a State that increased the minimum wage.

But for most of our fellow citizens, that has not been the case. And we now have nearly 40 million of our fellow citizens living at or below the poverty level.

I repeat this because I know my colleagues care so much about it. To have 13 million of our children in this country who, except by accident of birth, have found themselves living under these circumstances and having to survive at that level is unacceptable.

This is the United States of America. We ought to be doing far better.

To find out, as we recently pointed out on the chart, that almost every other industrialized country in Western Europe is doing far better by their children, far better by their minimum wage workers, ought to be a source of collective embarrassment for this great country of ours.

I don't think I have to make this case too often. We know how difficult it is going to be to compete in the 21st century. If we don't have a generation coming along that is well educated and well prepared to meet the challenges of the 21st century, it is going to be hard for Americans to remain strong and competitive.

You just have to read about what is happening in our major competitive countries. We take great pride in 60,000 high school students in this country who competed last year in the science fair, a great number. Compare that with 6 million who competed in the same science fair in the People's Republic of China last year.

That is the challenge of the 21st century.

With 13 million kids in this country going without getting a decent meal every day, we are going to have a real problem on our hands if you do not begin to address that.

I feel strongly about this and I wish we could reach agreement quickly. I remember the days when the minimum wage increase was done by a voice vote. We worked out the differences and sat down and negotiated, and it was passed unanimously on a record vote or a voice vote. How sad it is that we have come to this, where nearly a decade later we are sitting here arguing with each other about whether 15 million of our fellow citizens could get a bump of $2.10 per hour up to $7.25 an hour.

This ought to be something we can all agree on and not engage in this kind of acrimonious debate.

I want to point out, as well, that there are other provisions that will be offered by the majority that are very troublesome to me, including a fundamental change in the overtime pay schedule that I think is very unfair to people. This goes beyond the minimum wage worker. Here we have always provided that if you work more than a 40- hour week in that week, then you get time and a half. That has been Federal law. We are now saying we are going to apply a 2-week standard. An employer could have you work 50 hours in 1 week and 30 hours in the next. That is 80 hours, but for the 10 hours more in the first week, you don't get the additional pay.

That is unfair to a lot of people in this country. If you work an additional 10 hours in a week, that can be hard labor, and you ought to get time and a half. The law requires it. That would be a $3,000 per year pay cut for a median income worker and an $800 pay cut for minimum wage workers. That additional 10 hours of overtime pay could make a big difference.

I don't know why the majority decided to add that provision. It seems to me that is unduly harsh to an awful lot of people.

We talked about the poverty level working with the minimum wage. I am talking about people who are above the poverty level but are struggling and don't have to be making $16,000 or $10,000 to be struggling in this country. You could be making $40,000, $50,000 or $60,000 a year. If you are a family of four, you may very well be struggling, considering the cost-of-living increases that have gone on. For that man or woman who works an additional 10 hours a week, 10 hours away from their families after putting in 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, that additional 10 hours can be hard. And to say I am not going to give time and a half for those 10 hours I think is unfair to those people.

If that ends up being adopted, I think it is a great step back as well.

I hope we will adopt the proposal that the Senator from Massachusetts has offered. I commend him, once again, for making a strong case.

Again, on behalf of 13 million children in this country, and million of people who are out there struggling tonight to take care of their families, to raise good families, I urge adoption of the amendment being proposed by our colleague from Massachusetts. I hope it will be adopted by our colleagues when voted on tomorrow. It is an important contribution. Nine years is too long to wait for an increase in the minimum wage.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, I express my appreciation to the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Michigan. I have an amendment I am considering offering dealing with Guantanamo Bay.

I inquire as to whether there is an opportunity to work that out?

I thank the chairman.

I wanted to make sure in the discussion there was a space for that.

Reserving the right to object, I know we have had a discussion with the distinguished chairman of the committee. Senator Bingaman and I are interested in offering amendments at the appropriate time precloture on the Guantanamo situation. I am wondering if we could allocate an hour before the cloture motion is filed to raise that amendment and then have a vote on it, either one or two of those amendments.

I say to my colleague--

If we could agree to a vote on one or two amendments on the Gitmo situation and allow us the opportunity to debate this evening or possibly an hour tomorrow morning before the vote, that would accommodate us completely. If we could accommodate that request, then we can go forward. That is the request we would like to make.

Is that the understanding, that that would be the case?

Why don't we say around 7 o'clock. Say at 7 o'clock.

I would say at 7 p.m.

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

I appreciate the comments of others about Guantanamo Bay and the individuals who are being held here. I listened to the discussion earlier between the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, and my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Sessions from Alabama, who discussed the issue of those who are being detained in Guantanamo and the very facility itself.

I had thought about offering an amendment on this matter, but it is getting confusing, with the number of amendments being offered tomorrow and the length of debate. Senator Bingaman is offering an amendment which I think is worthy of consideration. I may withhold the amendment I intended to offer until a later time, on another matter, when there is more of an opportunity to have debate. There is at best only a limited amount of time we may get tomorrow for discussion. I have been told I might have only a few minutes.

I regret that. I wish we had more time to offer this amendment. But I think in the interests of my colleagues here, given the seriousness of the issue, it probably deserves more time. So, I will reserve offering that amendment until another time when we have more of an opportunity to discuss it.

Let me, if I can, discuss some issues that have been raised here this evening that I think are important. I have listened to my colleagues talk about, first of all, the individuals being held in Guantanamo. We talk about people here, some of whom clearly have the very worst intentions for the United States. Some of these individuals have attacked our soldiers, attacked innocent citizens, and pose serious threats. There is no debate about that. We are not arguing about whether or not that is true for many of these people.

There may, obviously, be some exceptions that fall out of that category--individuals who have been improperly retained or restrained and sent to Guantanamo or elsewhere. That certainly may be the case. But there is no question that many of these individuals are people to worry about. That is not the issue.

The issue is: We are a nation of laws. We say this all the time. It is something about which we take great pride. We have celebrated it over and over again. It is one of the distinguishing features of this great country of ours. We proved that we are a nation of laws categorically 60 years ago this very year when, in a different set of circumstances, the United States, along with our allies, some of whom reluctantly joined us in this effort, held a series of trials in a place called Nuremberg. We made the decision at Nuremberg that the defendants in those trials--these thugs, these people who had murdered 11 million innocents, 6 million Jews because of their religion, not to mention the millions more who lost their lives as a result of the Nazi war effort--would be afforded a trial instead of just being summarily executed. Winston Churchill advocated summary execution, and many others did as well. Why would you possibly give these defendants, it was asked--these thugs that I have mentioned, who carried out the orders of Adolph Hitler--why would you give them a trial? Why would they get a lawyer? Why would they be allowed to present evidence in a court of law?

It was the conclusion of the United States, under the leadership of people like Justice Robert Jackson, that the rule of law should be paramount. Justice Jackson and others argued very strongly that it was going to be critically important that the United States and others join in showing the world that there is a difference between these fascists--who had summarily executed people merely because of their ethnicity or religion--and this great country of ours.

In fact, Nuremberg was an interesting choice for the venue of those trials. In a sense, the Nazis chose Nuremberg. The Nuremberg Laws created a legal justification for every atrocity they committed, and so having a trial at Nuremberg, trying the very people who perpetrated these crimes, was somehow a fitting coincidence.

I speak about this because as a child growing up I heard night after night my father, who was the Executive Trial Counsel under Robert Jackson at Nuremberg, speak of these days. I was 1 year old in the summer of 1945 when my father left for a few short weeks merely to be an interrogator of these defendants at Nuremberg. He ended up replacing Judge Story as Executive Trial Counsel under Robert Jackson, and spent a year and a half trying a number of defendants at Nuremberg. He wrote my mother every single day 15 to 20-page letters describing in great detail his views and thoughts about the defendants and our allies in that effort, the Russians, the British, the French. He had some choice thoughts about a number of those people who were at Nuremberg. And he talked to his children growing up over the years about what happened at Nuremberg.

There was a great debate. In fact, half of the Supreme Court argued against Robert Jackson even going. There were colleagues here who argued that it was ex post facto juris prudence--that we had no right to go back and create a body of law to try the defendants at Nuremberg.

My father and others argued strenuously that the natural law should require that individuals who had committed such crimes--who had committed summary executions based on religion or ethnicity--that these people should be taken to task for what they had done, but also, critically, be afforded rights--the right to a fair trial, the right to have legal representation.

Imagine--people like Goering and von Ribbentrop and Keitel and Speer and others--actually be given a lawyer to represent them in a trial, so that they could stand up and make a case for themselves, as Goering did for days on end at Nuremberg.

Obviously, the facts are different here. At Nuremberg, the war was over. There was a different set of circumstances. I would be the first to acknowledge it.

That is not the comparison I am trying to draw. The comparison I am trying to draw here is about the rule of law.

We can characterize these individuals at Guantanamo in words that none of us are going to terribly argue about. But I come back to the point that those who were at Nuremberg, who made the case for the trial such as I described, need to be heard again today, 60 years later.

We are a nation of laws. We are different. We are not like these people who are being held at Guantanamo. The rule of law is something we cherish in this country, even to the point where we are willing to stand up and defend the rights of people who do things we find abhorrent.

Whenever I talk to students about the Bill of Rights and the first amendment, I tell them that it doesn't just protect their rights when they say something I agree with. It is important also to protect those individuals who stand up and say something I totally disagree with or find obnoxious, to put it mildly.

That is the rule of law. That is what makes us different. That is what distinguishes us.

What has happened already is that there is confusion. Are these prisoners of war? If they are, obviously the Geneva Conventions prevail. If they are not prisoners of war but enemy combatants, the Supreme Court has ruled already that they have certain rights, that they have a right to appeal that status. Yet, we find that a substantial number of these people are being held without any definition of who they are, what their status is legally, whether or not they are POWs, enemy combatants, or something else.

When Senator Bingaman offers his language here to get some clarity, why is that important? I think it is important because we are, again, a nation of laws. We determine that people ought to be given one status or another. We need some clarity as to who these individuals are and how they are going to be dealt with.

Why do I say that? First, because we ought to care, particularly in this a

body, the U.S. Senate, that the rule of law is defended. But second, and not unimportant, is the question of how we are being perceived in the fight against terrorism--something that requires international cooperation. It is critically important that the United States not only lead on this issue but that other nations around the world and their citizenry following us, join us, if you will, in this effort.

Today, as I speak about this issue--unfortunate symbols are important. Guantanamo has become a symbol of things that have gone wrong without clarity, without definition, and that lack of clarity is hurting our cause.

As we try to build a coalition, it is crucial that we win support for what we are trying to achieve. Without allies in this effort, we will never ever win this war on terrorism. It is a transnational problem that insists upon a transnational response.

It is critically important that we understand the necessity of building the kind of relationships that are going to be absolutely critical if we are going to succeed in this effort, as I believe we must. We have no choice but to succeed in this effort.

But to disregard the feelings or sentiments of others on whom we must support and depend in the future, if we are going to succeed in this effort, is something that ought not to be lost on the membership of this institution.

I am deeply concerned about the direction we are heading here, one that is lacking clarity, any clarity at all, in dealing with these individuals that are being held. What is their status? Is it one thing or do we need a determination of that.

The administration I think bears the responsibility to come forward and say what the status is. Just saying we are going to hold people without some clarity is not good enough. If you want to hold them, fine. Decide what they are. Are they prisoners of war? If they are, then that is one set of circumstances. If they are not prisoners of war but enemy combatants, that is a different set of criteria that applies. But the rule of law must apply.

The criticism we are receiving here is that again we just do not have any definition. This ought not be an issue that divides us and people trying to inflame the passions of others: Who cares more about terrorism or who is willing to stand up and fight against terrorism more than anyone else. That is not the issue. The issue is the rule of law which joins people of different political persuasions but of like mind about insisting that the rule of law be applied. That has never divided us. When we move that important criteria, that important definition of who we are as Americans--the rule of law--and engage in this sort of demagogic debate about who cares more about terrorism, or you don't care about terrorism at all, if you are only willing to talk about the rule of law, that somehow makes you weak on this issue, that you lack the kind of conviction and spine when it comes to dealing with terrorists because you start talking about the rule of law, how strong an American are you, if you only get up and talk about the rule of law?

We have all learned painfully when you begin to disregard the rule of law because you don't like the individuals that you want to apply it to, it comes back to hurt all of us.

Those who made the case more than 50 years ago at another place in another set of circumstances but facing the same criticism--the emotional response was certainly warranted. The Nazis brutalized people, incinerated millions, and certainly lit passions that said, Why would you ever give that kind of individual a lawyer and a right to present a case? And you can understand the emotions that people felt at the time--to give them the right to present a case? Did they ever give any of their victims a right to present a case in the incinerators of Buchenwald or Dachau? They never did. Why should we do it now?

Because people stood up and said we are different than they are. That is why we insist upon the rule of law.

Today, we need to remind ourselves--conservative, liberals, centrists--who we are. The rule of law unites us. It ought not divide us when we have these debates and discussions.

Guantanamo has unfortunately become a symbol of things that need to change.

The President himself, to his credit, a week or so ago in a press conference on June 14, acknowledged that fact. He said:

No question, Guantanamo sends . . . a signal to some of our

friends . . . provides an excuse, for example, to say, ``The

United States is not upholding the values that they're trying

to encourage other countries to adhere to.'' He also stated

clearly that he ``would like to close Guantanamo.''

That was the President of the United States. I am not making a case on my own. He recognizes what is happening with the symbol of Guantanamo, and how difficult it is to build the kind of relationships that are critical if we are going to succeed as we must in this war against terrorism.

I am not going to be offering an amendment. I think there is not adequate time to debate and discuss these things at this late hour in the evening. But I will find an opportunity at the appropriate time to raise the issue.

I hope we can build a broad, bipartisan consensus on these points. We ought not have division over the rule of law; to get clarification about how we talk about POWs, enemy combatants, and what the status of these people is because different sets of rules apply. Having no status at all and not fitting into one category or another is something that ought to be unacceptable to all of us.

I think having a facility that has become the symbol of something which none of us believe we stand for--we know we stand for the rule of law, we know we believe in that, and we embrace it--is raising serious reservations and concerns among people who ought to be joining us in this effort. If that is the case, as General McCaffrey said in talking about Guantanamo, close it down. He said he would like to close it down, and others believe as well that we ought to find other venues to deal with these issues as well as, of course, determining the legal status of these individuals so we can move on and again build the kind of coalitions necessary to have a successful coalition to fight the war on terrorism.

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

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, it is an interesting point. Going back, there was a body of law that had emerged prior to Nuremberg that, in fact, those who advocated that there should be a trial at Nuremberg relied on a point. But one of the great crimes that was argued against was crimes against humanity at Nuremberg. Many argued that this was sort of making it out of whole cloth. I don't think it was. But that was debated at the time.

The people who my colleague described as committing crimes against humanity, it clearly seems that those who were not enemy combatants in the

traditional definition of that word but engaged in the kind of brutality against humanity, today there is a codified body of laws that would certainly make those people subject to international law let alone our own kind of crimes.

The point I am trying to make is, it just gives it some clarity. What are they? What is the legal status in that category? If you are a POW, there is one set of laws that apply. If you are an enemy combatant, there is a set of laws and regulations that apply. If you are a non- enemy combatant and have engaged in the very activities my colleague described, what is the law that applies to those individuals under those circumstances? There is no status at all being attributed to these people. They are in limbo. That is what I am concerned about.

I agree.

If my friend will yield further, I am sure he is a good lawyer. In the Rasul v. Bush case in 2004, of course, the Supreme Court ruled ``a state of war is not a blank check for the President,'' and ``enemy combatants have the right to challenge their detention before a judge or other neutral decisionmaker.''

That took a court case basically going to the highest Court of our land--I don't know what the ruling was, 5 to 4 or 6 to 3--and they ruled in that case enemy that combatants have a judicial right to challenge their status.

All I am saying, I am not trying to determine the outcome, just what is the status for the people to be detained or moved other places.

Our highest Court has said it is not a blank check, that they have a right to make a case. I don't want to be seen as perceiving--because I am saying they have a right to make a case, do I like these people? Am I trying to befriend them? I am saying the rule of law has to apply.

We are different. That is what makes us different from these people. These people would never give their victims a right to a judicial system proceeding as they engage in the kind of activity my colleague from Alabama properly described.

What makes my colleague from Alabama, and I hope myself and our colleagues, different is this very point the Supreme Court made. Even these enemy combatants have the right to make a case before a judge or other ``neutral decisionmaker,'' that the state of war is not a blank check for the President. That is the point I am trying to make. I am not trying to characterize the people in any other way than what my colleague has described.

The point the Senator and I need to come together on is the rule of law. That is all I am trying to suggest. I don't have an amendment to offer, but we have to find this common ground on this issue because it is who we are. It is what we want the world to know and appreciate what the United States is. That is really what did so much for us in the wake of World War II where we became this symbol of nations that rise above their passions and their emotions.

He is absolutely right on Nuremberg. Several people got limited sentences, some got off, and many got executed, as they should have, but it went through a legal process. To read those transcripts, where people went on and talked as Goering--I am tempted to draw the comparison of Goering to Saddam Hussein, who talks endlessly. Goering did almost the same, and there was concern by some that he might have gotten away had it not been for a very aggressive prosecution.

It was the rule of law, and how proud these people were that showed the world--and the United States led--we were different.

The fact situations are very different between the end of a conflict and an ongoing conflict and how you deal with it, but the rule of law does deserve stronger support than I am afraid we are giving. That is my concern.

Mr. President, I want to take a minute or 2, if I can, to join my other colleagues who over the last several days have paid tribute to our colleague from West Virginia, my seatmate, Senator Robert Byrd, who, on Monday, celebrated the unique landmark of serving longer than any other person in the history of this remarkable institution.

I said to Senator Byrd, my colleague and seatmate, yesterday, his longevity is impressive but his record as a U.S. Senator is really what excels. While serving for 47 years in this institution is certainly remarkable, what he has done during those 47 years is what is truly remarkable. His contribution to the public discourse and debate of our country throughout that time has been truly exemplary.

I noted the other day, in fact, that when Senator Byrd was first elected to the House, there was a wonderful picture taken that appeared with Senator Byrd and several other Members of newly minted Congressmen who had been elected in 1952 at the White House with Dwight Eisenhower. In that group of pictures was also a newly minted Congressman from Connecticut by the name of Thomas Dodd, my father.

Senator Byrd and my father were elected to the House together in 1952, and came to this body together in 1958. So during these many years of public service, Robert C. Byrd has had to serve with two Dodds in the U.S. Congress, my father and myself. I sit next to Senator Byrd by choice. I have been his seatmate for almost 15 or 16 years now, and do so because I have enjoyed his company, his wisdom, and listening to his contributions to the debate and his knowledge of the Senate and its procedures.

I know we have a new group of pages who have arrived to serve in our Nation's Capitol here in the U.S. Senate in the last few days. As someone who sat on the steps of the Democratic side back in the early 1960s as a page, I say to the pages, I would strongly urge you to listen to Robert C. Byrd. If you want to have truly a great lesson during your tenure here as pages, then listen to the remarkable Senator from West Virginia, and you will learn more in the short period of time you are here than almost anything else I could advise you to do, except to read his two-volume history of the U.S. Senate, which you may not have time to do during your 2 of 3 weeks here as pages.

Senator Byrd, of course, has had significant accomplishments. And I think

of the time when I served as a page, an unpaid page, back many years ago, and the giants of the Senate in those days; certainly people such as Lyndon Johnson, Mike Mansfield, Richard Russell, Everett Dirksen, Margaret Chase Smith, Hubert Humphrey, John Sherman Cooper, Stuart Symington--and so many others who served during those years who were truly giants in many ways.

They were Senators in the very fullest sense of the word. They represented an institutional spirit that in many ways is lacking today, and I regret that deeply. But it was critical to the success of our democratic Republic how they related one to the other. It is a spirit of independence and understanding that all Senators are equal in this body, regardless of the positions they hold in the institution. All 100 of us are equal Members representing our respective States and constituencies. It is a spirit that allows us to debate--sometimes very vigorously--our differences, while still obliging us to seek common ground for the common good of our country.

Robert Byrd certainly epitomizes that spirit--a vigorous debater but also someone who recognizes it is vitally important to reach common goals for the common good. It is a spirit that refuses to submit to the encroachments of any other institution or office in the land, including that of the Executive.

I cannot count the times that Robert C. Byrd would correct someone who said: I served under a President here. I served under seven Presidents. Robert Byrd will quickly tell you: You do not serve under any President. You serve with Presidents. You are a Member of a coequal branch of the U.S. Government as embodied in the Constitution of the United States.

And how right he is. As Senators understand, Robert Byrd understands implicitly that the Senate is a coequal, powerful branch of Government, that our Founders wanted it to be of equal weight in the deliberations of our country.

I carry with me a copy of the U.S. Constitution. I have had this for many, many years, and it was given to me by my seatmate, Robert C. Byrd. It is getting rather worn, but his inscription inside is something I will cherish for the rest of my days and life--that I carry a copy of the Constitution given to me by this person who cherishes and loves the Constitution as much as Robert C. Byrd does. One of the reasons I care so deeply about this particular copy is of course it was given to me by him and inscribed by him.

I think it is only fitting that someone who cares so much about that document and this institution is now the Senate's longest serving Member.

In his close to five decades of Senate service, Senator Byrd has had an enormous impact on his State and on our country. He, more than any other Member that I can think of in the last half century, has worked to preserve the delicate system of checks and balances conceived by the Founders of our great Republic. That work is typified by his opposition to the line-item veto and his insistence on preserving the prerogatives of this institution in relation to the other branches of Government.

But more than that, he has also helped to bring good jobs, better schools, and decent health care not only to the constituents of West Virginia but also to millions of people across this country because of his leadership.

He has never forgotten the good, hard-working people who sent him here from his beloved West Virginia or why they did so; that is, to make our Nation a stronger, more prosperous, and more hopeful Nation for all of its citizens.

Senator Byrd has had the courage and strength of character to admit past errors--something that too few of us do in this Chamber--and to seek genuine understanding for the good of our country.

In his history of the U.S. Senate, Senator Byrd has written that:

After 200 years, the Senate is still the anchor of the

Republic, is still the morning and evening star in the

American constitutional constellation.

More than any other U.S. Senator in this body, I believe Senator Byrd has helped to ensure that this U.S. Senate retains that unique distinction.

So I am pleased to join with my other colleagues in wishing him well. I know more than anything else he would have loved to have his beloved Erma here with him in these days to celebrate this achievement. Of course, he lost Erma just a few months ago. But I am certain, as all of us are, that she is watching, with a great big smile, as she celebrates with all of us the distinction that our colleague from West Virginia has achieved this last Monday--47 years in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce bipartisan legislation with my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Burr, that seeks to protect nursing home residents, staff, and visitors from the dangers associated with fire.

In February, 2003, a multialarm fire at a nursing home in Hartford, CT, took the lives of 16 residents. It was the worst nursing home fire in Connecticut's history. The tragic loss of life was made worse by the fact that the nursing home lacked an automatic sprinkler system--a defect disturbingly present in many nursing homes across the country.

I believe many Americans--especially those with a loved one in a nursing home facility--would be shocked to learn that, according to the Government Accountability Office, GAO, between 20 and 30 percent of the country's 17,000 nursing homes lack an automatic sprinkler system. In its 2004 report, the GAO found that ``the substantial loss of life in the [Hartford fire] could have been reduced or eliminated by the presence of properly functioning automatic sprinkler systems.'' Furthermore, the report concluded that ``the Federal oversight of nursing home compliance with fire safety standards is inadequate.''

Responding to the fire in Hartford and a similar tragedy in Nashville, TN, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, required that nursing homes without automatic sprinkler systems install battery-operated smoke detectors. While this new requirement was viewed as a positive step, it was largely criticized by fire and patient- safety advocates because smoke detectors are often not wired to a central alarm system or a fire department.

I believe it is safe to assume that nursing home directors do not choose freely to operate their facilities without automatic sprinkler systems. According to the GAO and American Health Care Association, most nursing homes simply cannot afford the cost incurred by installing an automatic sprinkler system. Furthermore, almost all of these facilities cannot afford the cost because of forces beyond their control. Today, nursing homes--including many in Connecticut--are financially strained by inadequate reimbursement rates from Medicare and Medicaid, rising insurance premiums, rising energy costs, and the general cost of care for some of our country's sickest patients.

That is why Senator Burr and I are introducing this legislation. The Nursing Home Fire Safety Act of 2006 contains two principal components.

First, the legislation includes a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that, within 5 years, every nursing home facility in the United States should be equipped with an automatic sprinkler system. The resolution also urges CMS to adopt the National Fire Protection Association's Life Safety Code, a nationally-renowned set of criteria addressing ``construction, protection, and occupancy features necessary to minimize danger to life from fire, including smoke, fumes, or panic.''

Second, the legislation provides low-interest loans and grants to nursing homes in proven need of financial assistance. The larger loan initiative assists nursing homes that cannot afford the upfront costs of installing automatic sprinkler systems but can afford to pay back a low-interest Government loan. The smaller grant initiative would assist qualified nursing homes that lack any ability to pay for the installation of an automatic sprinkler system. Together, these initiatives would provide critical resources to prevent tragedies like those seen in Hartford and Nashville from occurring again.

I thank my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Burr, for introducing this bipartisan measure with me. I also thank Congressmen John Larson from Connecticut and Peter King from New York for spearheading companion legislation in the House. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to protect nursing home residents, staff, and visitors from the dangers associated with fire.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the legislation be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce bipartisan legislation with my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Burr, that seeks to protect nursing home residents, staff, and visitors from the dangers associated with fire.

In February, 2003, a multialarm fire at a nursing home in Hartford, CT, took the lives of 16 residents. It was the worst nursing home fire in Connecticut's history. The tragic loss of life was made worse by the fact that the nursing home lacked an automatic sprinkler system--a defect disturbingly present in many nursing homes across the country.

I believe many Americans--especially those with a loved one in a nursing home facility--would be shocked to learn that, according to the Government Accountability Office, GAO, between 20 and 30 percent of the country's 17,000 nursing homes lack an automatic sprinkler system. In its 2004 report, the GAO found that ``the substantial loss of life in the [Hartford fire] could have been reduced or eliminated by the presence of properly functioning automatic sprinkler systems.'' Furthermore, the report concluded that ``the Federal oversight of nursing home compliance with fire safety standards is inadequate.''

Responding to the fire in Hartford and a similar tragedy in Nashville, TN, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, required that nursing homes without automatic sprinkler systems install battery-operated smoke detectors. While this new requirement was viewed as a positive step, it was largely criticized by fire and patient- safety advocates because smoke detectors are often not wired to a central alarm system or a fire department.

I believe it is safe to assume that nursing home directors do not choose freely to operate their facilities without automatic sprinkler systems. According to the GAO and American Health Care Association, most nursing homes simply cannot afford the cost incurred by installing an automatic sprinkler system. Furthermore, almost all of these facilities cannot afford the cost because of forces beyond their control. Today, nursing homes--including many in Connecticut--are financially strained by inadequate reimbursement rates from Medicare and Medicaid, rising insurance premiums, rising energy costs, and the general cost of care for some of our country's sickest patients.

That is why Senator Burr and I are introducing this legislation. The Nursing Home Fire Safety Act of 2006 contains two principal components.

First, the legislation includes a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that, within 5 years, every nursing home facility in the United States should be equipped with an automatic sprinkler system. The resolution also urges CMS to adopt the National Fire Protection Association's Life Safety Code, a nationally-renowned set of criteria addressing ``construction, protection, and occupancy features necessary to minimize danger to life from fire, including smoke, fumes, or panic.''

Second, the legislation provides low-interest loans and grants to nursing homes in proven need of financial assistance. The larger loan initiative assists nursing homes that cannot afford the upfront costs of installing automatic sprinkler systems but can afford to pay back a low-interest Government loan. The smaller grant initiative would assist qualified nursing homes that lack any ability to pay for the installation of an automatic sprinkler system. Together, these initiatives would provide critical resources to prevent tragedies like those seen in Hartford and Nashville from occurring again.

I thank my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Burr, for introducing this bipartisan measure with me. I also thank Congressmen John Larson from Connecticut and Peter King from New York for spearheading companion legislation in the House. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to protect nursing home residents, staff, and visitors from the dangers associated with fire.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the legislation be printed in the Congressional Record.

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

Will the Chair repeat his statement?

I hear no objection, Mr. President. Since no one is on the floor, obviously, that makes it easier.

Marriage Protection Amendment

Mr. President, if I can, I wanted to spend a couple of minutes on a matter that this body voted on this morning. I was unavoidably absent this morning at a family matter in Rhode Island, so I was not here for the vote. But I wanted to just take a minute or so here to say to my colleagues and to others that had I been present this morning, I would have voted no on the motion for cloture, and had cloture been invoked, I would have voted against the amendment. I am speaking of the proposed constitutional amendment that would have banned same-sex marriages.

Like many of my colleagues who have spoken on this matter, I believe this is a matter that belongs in the States. This is not a matter that ought to be a part of the Constitution. I have been here for a number of years in the Senate, and over the history of this great country of ours there have been over 11,000--more than 11,000 proposed constitutional amendments. The Congress and the Nation in its wisdom over the years have adopted only a handful of those proposals--27 is the number of amendments that have been adopted since the formation of our country. The reason for that, of course, is the Founders insisted that it be not an easy matter to amend the Constitution and that we ought to amend the Constitution to correct problems in the governmental structures or to expand the category of individual rights such as the first 10 amendments achieved in our Nation.

Our Nation's constitutional history clearly demonstrates that change to our Constitution is appropriate on only the rarest occasions-- specifically, to correct problems in the government structure or to expand the category of individual rights such as the first 10 amendments which compose the Bill of Rights. Notably, the amendment to establish prohibition is the only time that the Federal Constitution was amended for a reason other than those I just mentioned.

It was repealed 13 years after its enactment and has been judged by history to be a failure insofar as it sought to restrict personal liberty.

The Framers deliberately made it difficult to amend the Constitution. They did not intend it to be subject to

the passions and whims of the moment. Time has proven their wisdom. Since 1789, when the first Congress was convened, there have been 11,413 proposals to amend the Constitution. Sixty-four have been offered in this Congress alone. Luckily, only 27 have been successful. If all or even a substantial fraction of these proposed amendments were adopted, our founding document would today resemble a Christmas tree, a civil and criminal code rather than a constitution, and the United States would be a very different Nation.

It is unfortunate that the majority leadership of the Senate does not share James Madison's view that the Constitution should only be amended ``for certain, great, and extraordinary occasions.''

Supporters of this proposed amendment would like you to believe that there is currently an ``assault'' on traditional marriage by some American couples and families that warrants Federal action in the form of a constitutional amendment to ``protect'' the institution of marriage. They have utterly failed to marshal even a minimal degree of credible facts to support such a claim.

Indeed the facts suggest that there is no such crisis. The Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, was enacted in 1996 to provide a federal definition of marriage and to stipulate that no state should be required to give effect to a law of any other State with respect to a definition of marriage.

There has been no successful challenge to the DOMA in the decade since its enactment. Courts have never identified a Federal right to same-sex marriage. States have never been forced to recognize an out- of-state marriage that is inconsistent with its own laws.

And no church, temple, mosque, or synagogue has been forced to perform marriages inconsistent with the beliefs of those who worship in them. For Congress to step in now and dictate to the States how they ought to proceed in this matter thus runs counter to the facts. It also runs counter to the principles of federalism and personal liberty that many proponents of this constitutional amendment claim to hold dear.

I am disappointed that we find ourselves spending valuable time on the Senate floor debating this issue. Less than 2 years ago, the majority leader brought the same measure to the Floor. It failed by a vote of 48 to 50. There is no reason to think that it will not fail again.

It is no coincidence that approximately 5 months before the upcoming midterm elections the Senator floor is being held hostage by the majority's misguided priorities. I fear that some of those leading the charge on this legislation are more interested in dividing Americans for partisan gain than uniting the country to solve problems.

Make no mistake: married couples are under considerable strain these days. But the cause of that strain is not the conduct of other American couples going about their daily private lives. Instead, married couples and all Americans are feeling the strain of high gas prices, soaring health care costs, schools in need of reform, a sluggish economy, and a war in Iraq in which American men and women are fighting with courage. Yet this administration and others in this body have little to offer to relieve these strains. Instead, they seek legislation that will only divide and distract Americans from the common challenges we should be facing together.

This proposed constitutional amendment is not the best use of our time. We should be addressing the real needs of American families. We should be legislating. That is what we are elected to do--to address issues like autism, underage drinking, the growing problem of obesity among our nation's children, and the threat of terrorism. But today we have not been afforded that opportunity. Instead, today feels like Groundhog Day.

It is another election year and we are here discussing another issue that has nothing to do with the great challenges of our time.

Only on one occasion did we deviate from that practice and that was the adoption of the amendment dealing with the prohibition of the consumption of alcoholic beverages. That was a complete deviation from the two situations in which the Founders intended that we would amend the Constitution of the United States.

I might point out that it was only a few years after the adoption of the amendment on prohibition that it was repealed by the Congress of the United States and the people across this country.

It would be a mistake, in my view, to repeat another error like that which was committed in the early part of the 20th century when we adopted the prohibition amendment.

Supporters of this amendment like to say that this debate is about an assault on the institution of marriage. I do not believe that to be the case. I do believe, however, that there is currently an assault on families. I am disappointed this body is not spending the time allocated for this debate talking about the important issues families today. For example, we could be talking about the bill dealing with autism that my colleague from Pennsylvania and I have authored and we are trying to get attention on. Obviously the issues of energy prices, education, health care--there are any number of issues I can think of that we might have spent time discussing. We should be trying to come up with some answers rather than debate a question which has marginal significance and minimal importance for most people and which ought really to be left to the States.

Let me also suggest that the motivations behind this may not be helping families but instead inciting a political debate for the elections coming up this fall. What worries me more than anything else, however, is I think it is designed to make people angry, to divide us as a country. I am deeply concerned about the growing divisions occurring in our Nation. This is a time when we ought to be coming together, when our leadership ought to be asking us to sit down and try to come up with answers on some of the overwhelming problems we face-- not problems that are so overwhelming we can't answer them. Instead, we are spending that valuable time on a matter that is clearly designed to do nothing more than inflame the passions of people in this country rather than appealing to calm, to rationality, to common sense, to good discourse as a way of addressing the underlying issues. This is a great disappointment.

Again, I would have voted no on the motion to invoke cloture. I am pleased my colleagues from both parties, in a bipartisan way, rejected that cloture motion. It was a good conclusion reached here, and I regret I was not able to be here to cast a vote along with my colleagues who expressed a similar point of view.

The Estate Tax

If I may, I wish to turn to the matter at hand; that is, the debate regarding the estate tax. The last time this body was scheduled to consider legislation to repeal the estate tax, the majority leader decided to postpone consideration of this bill in the wake of the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina. The general consensus was it was unseemly for us to be talking about having one-half of one percent--and that is what we are talking about, one-half of 1 percent of the population of this country--receive a bonanza, if you will, by repealing the obligation to share part of their estates to contribute to the growth and benefit of our Nation. The decision was it would be unseemly.

In fact, my good friend from Iowa, the chairman of the Finance Committee, for whom I have a great deal of respect, said, ``It's a little unseemly to be talking about doing away with or enhancing the estate tax at a time when people are suffering.''

I agree with my colleague from Iowa. I agreed with him then; I agree with him now. If it was unseemly to be talking about enhancing the wealth of the wealthiest in our society at a time when the Nation was suffering from the devastation of Hurricane Katrina only a few short months ago, I suggest that problems have not abated so substantially that we can now make the case that it is no longer unseemly, if you will, to use his language, to adopt a provision here that would make it far more difficult for us to address all of our other priorities as a Nation.

I hope our colleagues will agree and join with others in voting against cloture on the motion to proceed to what I consider to be irresponsible legislation.

Today's discussion is about priorities, as it always should be. I have

supported lower taxes for working Americans, including responsible estate tax reform. I think it is wrong to have excessive estate taxes imposed on ordinary farmers and small businesses owners out there who try to leave those businesses or land to their families. Because of the modest incomes most people in these groups make, they could find it impossible to do so under an excessive tax.

I note the presence of my good friend from Arkansas on the Senate floor who speaks eloquently about the farmers in her State who have been left, generation after generation, farms and land for succeeding generations to continue their great traditions. The Presiding Officer comes from a State with a strong agricultural tradition. All of our States have strong small business components, and all of us understand the importance of allowing those families to pass on to succeeding generations the ability to continue those efforts. But I hope my colleagues agree as well, that talking about the total elimination of this estate tax is, I think, irresponsible. It goes too far when we start talking about providing such a massive benefit for only the largest one-half of 1 percent of estates.

I represent the most affluent State in the United States on a per capita basis. I presume as a percentage of my population I have a larger number of estates that would benefit from total repeal than most of the other members of this body, with the exception of my colleague, Senator Lieberman. I can tell you that the few estates that can benefit as a result of the distinction we are making between reform of the estate tax and total repeal seems to go too far, considering the revenue loss it would mean to our country.

We are talking about a revenue loss on an annual basis that exceeds the entire amount of money we commit to elementary and secondary education. Think of that. The entire amount of money in the Federal budget toward elementary and secondary education would be lost as a result of the complete and total repeal, rather than a modest, intelligent, thoughtful, rational reform of this estate tax. We should not bankrupt our Nation's future for a measure that would deliver no benefit to anyone outside a few extremely wealthy estates.

I might point out that some of the most wealthy Americans, people who would benefit the most from this total repeal, have been the loudest, clearest voices urging us not to do so. We ought to take note that the Gates family, people like Warren Buffett, people like John Kluge, people who have made great fortunes in this country and made those great fortunes in their own time, through creative work, not inherited wealth, are urging us, despite the fact that they would benefit to the tune of billions of dollars with a total repeal--listen to the Warren Buffetts, the Bill Gateses, the John Kluges, when they tell you this would be an unwise decision to make to just completely repeal a tax that is so important for continuing our ability to meet our obligations.

Let's not forget we are a nation at war, with American troops fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, at a terrible human and monetary cost. Repealing the estate tax will cost some $776 billion over 10 years, which would fully be applied beginning after 2011. Not a penny of this cost would be offset. It would all be added to our Nation's debt, which is already now at $8.4 trillion.

I made the case a few weeks ago--how big is $8.4 trillion? If we were to go out on the Capitol steps out here and hand out a hundred-dollar bill every single second, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, how long do you think it would take to pay off $8.4 trillion? I will tell you the answer. It would take more than 2600 years--24 hours a day, 7 days a week, a one-hundred-dollar bill every second, handing it out. It would take 2,635 years. That is the amount of debt we have accumulated over the last few years, and now we are about to add to that to the tune of almost another trillion dollars here if you take what the revenue loss would be and the added interest cost of some $213 billion. That would be the revenue loss that would result from repealing the estate tax. More than a trillion dollars that would benefit no one at all outside the largest one-half of 1 percent of the estates in the United States; 99.5 percent of the estates in the United States would not gain at all by the proposals to have a modification or reform of the estate tax. Each year of repeal on average would cost roughly the same in today's terms as everything the Government now spends on homeland security and education.

Over the past 5\1/2\ years, the current administration has radically altered our Nation's economic and social well-being, in my view. Median incomes have stagnated, poverty rates have risen, and more and more people are living without health insurance. Our troops have struggled with inadequate body armor and other necessities of battle. Farmers, workers, and small business owners are contending with rising interest rates, higher energy and health care costs, and growing global competition. While these problems have grown, the administration has severely reduced our Nation's ability to meet them by driving our Federal budget from surplus into deep deficit.

Since the current President took office, the Federal budget has declined from a surplus of $128 billion to a deficit of more than $300 billion. The national debt has risen to $8.4 trillion. In just 5 and a half years, the administration has added more debt from foreign creditors than every other President in the history of the United States combined--in the last 5 years.

Repealing the estate tax would make these problems far worse, not better, and further hurt America's ability to address our most pressing issues.

A few months ago, the administration and the majority of this body enacted a budget reconciliation bill, the so-called Deficit Reduction Act. This bill made deep cuts to health care, childcare, and education, with the burden falling most heavily on working Americans--in particular on low-income parents and children, the elderly, and people with disabilities. The American people were told these cuts were necessary because of the deep budget deficits our country was facing. Yet here we are today, having been told only a few months ago that this great budget reconciliation act was necessary, despite the fact that we are going to ask those who are the least capable in many cases of providing for their needs, feeling the tremendous pressure they are, here we are today only a few weeks later being told that we can afford to take $1 trillion out of the budget to serve one-half of 1 percent of the estates in this great country of ours.

Where is the logic in that? Mr. President, 99.5 percent of the estates in our country would not be adversely affected by what we are talking about. They would not pay an estate tax. Only one-half of 1 percent would. Yet $1 trillion gets lost as a result of that decision, over the next 10 years, at a time, as I mentioned earlier, when we are not paying for the war and we find ourselves in tremendous need if we start talking about education, health care, and homeland security, just to mention two or three items.

Some proponents of the estate tax repeal have propagated the myth that the estate tax disproportionately harms farmers and small businesses by forcing them to sell their family farm or business in order to pay the tax. This just is not true. It is a scare tactic used by those who will benefit from repeal to create support for their cause. In reality, when the New York Times asked the American Farm Bureau Federation for real-life examples of a family farmer forced to sell by the estate tax, not a single example could be found. Not a single one.

Contrary to the misinformation that has been spread, no one but the very largest estates would ever pay this tax on inherited wealth. This year, an individual can pass on as much as $2 million and a couple can pass on as much as $4 million to their heirs, completely free of any taxation whatsoever. With these exemptions, 99.5 percent of all the estates in the United States would owe no tax at all. Those that will owe, only owe on the value of their estate that exceeds the $2 or $4 million that I just mentioned. With the exemption levels scheduled to rise in 2009 to $3.5 million for individuals and $7 million for couples, the percentage who will owe a single cent in estate tax falls to a mere 0.3 percent of the population that would pay any estate tax at all.

So 99.7 percent of the American population would have no obligation whatsoever. Yet we are about to enact legislation here that would repeal this altogether.

I do not understand that at all. How do you explain to people today that your child or your spouse serving in Iraq or Afghanistan? We are being told we don't have enough money for body armor or to up-armor the vehicles they drive, or that homeland security has to be cut because we don't have the revenues to support it. Yet we turn around and do something like this? Where is the logic in this? Under these rules, the number of Americans affected by the estate tax has declined dramatically already under current law, from 50,000 people in 2000 to only 13,000 today, and by 2009 the number will fall to 7,000. Out of a nation of 300 million people, 7,000 people in our 50 States would not be obligated to pay any estate tax at all.

Seven-thousand out of three hundred million, yet we lose $1 trillion in revenue.

Again, where is the logic or common sense in a proposal like that given the damage it would do?

As I said, my State of Connecticut ranks consistently year after year at or near the top of the Nation in per capita income and other such measures. In my State and across America, people of all incomes have worked hard, obviously, to get where they are.

I don't like class warfare. I don't like drawing those distinctions. Many of these people I mentioned, pay taxes and have worked hard, and I respect that.

I urge my colleagues to listen to some of the men and women who have accumulated the greatest wealth as a result of their ingenuity and hard work. What are they saying about this in terms of the benefit to the country and the cost it would have?

In my State, I probably have a greater percentage of constituents than almost any other State in the country who would benefit if there is a total repeal. I stand here today, telling you that an overwhelming majority of the very people who would benefit from this, think it goes too far; that we are going too far with this proposal.

I urge my colleagues to join those who have urged us to be more modest, to have a more commonsense approach than repeal or near-repeal. Again, it would be a major failure to lose the revenue equal to that which we spend on all of the education for elementary and secondary school students, all of the spending on homeland security, to once again drive us further and further into debt. I think it is a great tragedy to be passing that on to the coming generations, to say we want to give a tax break only to the top five-tenths of 1 percent, or three- tenths of 1 percent of the population. That is an indictment that future generations will look back on and ask: What were they thinking at the beginning of the 21st century that they would take such a significant step as to deprive this Nation of the ability to have the revenue we need in order to meet our obligations?

When the vote on cloture on this matter occurs, I urge Members to vote no.

There is a way to do this, and I think many of us are willing to support responsible reform in the estate tax area. But the notion of total repeal, I think, is highly irresponsible.

I urge my colleagues to join in the condemnation of that suggestion.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that seeks to meet the mental health needs of children and adolescents.

I believe that the task of ensuring the emotional well-being and resiliency of our young people is one of paramount importance. We all know that mental health is a critical component contributing to a child's general health and ability to grow--both intellectually and physically. Yet, the task of ensuring the mental health of children and adolescents is not an easy one. In fact, it is arguably one of the most difficult and largely unspoken tasks facing our Nation today.

According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, one in ten children and adolescents suffers from mental health disorders serious enough to cause some level of impairment. Out of these young people, only one in five receives the specialty mental health services they require.

These startling statistics prompted former Surgeon General Dr. David Satcher to convene a conference in 1999 that examined the mental health needs of children. The conference--composed of some of the Nation's leading experts in mental and public health--published a seminal report that concluded that `` . . . the burden of suffering experienced by children with mental illness and their families has created a health crisis in this country.'' The report further concluded that ``. . . there is broad evidence that the Nation lacks a unified infrastructure to help children suffering from mental illness.''

I would like to submit for the Record personal testimony offered by three families in Connecticut. I believe their words and experiences speak most directly to the ``burden of suffering'' described in Surgeon General Satcher's report--a burden endured by millions of children, adolescents, and then families nationwide. I ask unanimous consent that this testimony be printed in the Record.

I thank these families for sharing their personal experiences with me, and for following me to share their experiences publicly. More importantly, I commend their tenacity in facing the challenges they face each and every day in caring for their children. Their stories, along with the stories I have heard from other families in Connecticut and elsewhere in the country, have fueled my belief that child and adolescent mental health needs to be a top priority.

Recognizing the fragmentation of the Nation's mental health delivery system, Surgeon General Satcher's report concluded that one fundamental way to meet the mental--health needs of children and adolescents is to ``. . . move towards a community-based mental health delivery system that balances health promotion, disease prevention, early detection, and universal access to care.'' The report further stated eight goals to ensure the resiliency of children and adolescents. These goals were: first, to promote public awareness of children's mental health issues and reduce stigma associated with mental illness; second, to continue to develop, disseminate, and implement scientifically-proven prevention and treatment services in the field of children's mental health; third, to improve the assessment of and recognition of mental health needs in children; fourth, to eliminate racial, ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in access to mental health care services; fifth, to improve the infrastructure for children's mental health services, including support for scientifically-proven interventions across professions; sixth, to increase access to and coordination of quality mental health care services; seventh, to train frontline providers to recognize and manage mental health issues, and educate mental healthcare providers about scientifically-proven prevention and treatment services, and; finally, to monitor the access to and coordination of quality mental health care services.

In 2002, President Bush established the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health to study three obstacles identified by the President that prevent Americans with mental illness from getting the care they require. These obstacles were identified as the stigma that surrounds mental health care, a lack of mental health parity, and the fragmented mental health delivery system. In 2003, the President's New Freedom Commission issued a report that made a series of recommendations on how the Nation's mental health system could be transformed for the better. Like Surgeon General Satcher's report, this publication also set forth a series of goals. They were: first, to ensure Americans understand that mental health is essential to overall health; second, to ensure that mental health care is consumer- and family-driven; third, to eliminate disparities in mental health care services; fourth, to ensure that

early mental health screening, assessment, and referral services are common practices; fifth, to ensure that excellent mental health care is delivered and research is accelerated, and; finally, to ensure that technology is used to access mental health care and information.

I describe these two reports because the legislation I am introducing today seeks to address the recommendations they espouse. My legislation, the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Resiliency Act of 2006, authorizes $210 million in an effort to meet five principal objectives.

The first objective is to increase access to, and improve the quality of, mental health care services delivered to children and adolescents. My legislation seeks to meet this objective in several ways.

First, it authorizes a new grant of $50 million for States to develop and implement a comprehensive mental health plan exclusively for children and adolescents that provides community-based mental health early intervention and prevention services and relevant support services, such as primary health care, education, transportation and housing. The plan would have to meet a set of core operational and evaluative requirements and would have to be developed through extensive outside consultation with children and adolescents, their families, advocates and health professionals.

Second, my legislation authorizes two matching grants of $22.5 million each for community health centers--many of which primarily serve low-income populations and primary health care facilities, such as a pediatrician's office, to provide community-based mental health services in coordination with community mental health centers and/or trained mental health professionals.

Third, my legislation authorizes a new grant of $22.5 million for States, localities and private nonprofit organizations--e.g., school districts--to provide community-based mental health services in schools appropriate mental health training activities to relevant school and health professionals.

Fourth, my legislation authorizes a new grant of $20 million for States, localities and private nonprofit organizations to provide community-based mental health services specifically for at-risk mothers and their children.

Fifth, my legislation authorizes a new grant of $10 million for States, localities and private nonprofit organizations to provide community-based mental health services for children and adolescents in juvenile justice systems.

Sixth, my legislation authorizes $10 million for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish, run and evaluate a demonstration project that improves the ability of local case managers to work across the mental health, public health, substance abuse, child welfare, education, juvenile justice and social services systems in a State.

Finally, my legislation requires States to meet their statutory obligations to fund fully mental health screening services under the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment Services Program. It also requires current successful initiatives, such as the Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services for Children with Serious Emotional Disturbance Program, the Community Mental Health Services Performance Partnership Block Grant, the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant, and the Jail Diversion Program, to expand their scope with respect to certain reporting, evaluative, and service activities.

The second objective my legislation seeks to meet is ensuring greater public awareness and greater family participation in mental health services decision-making. Towards this end, my legislation does the following:

First, it authorizes a new grant of $10 million for States, localities and private nonprofit organizations to develop policies that enable families of children and adolescents with mental health disorders to have increased control and choice over mental health services provided and received through a publicly-funded mental health system.

Second, it authorizes a new grant of $10 million for private nonprofit organizations to provide information on child and adolescent mental health disorders, services, support services and respite care to families of children and adolescents with or who are at risk for mental health disorders.

Third, it authorizes a new grant of $10 million for private nonprofit organizations to develop community coalitions and public education activities that promote child and adolescent resiliency.

In addition, my legislation authorizes $10 million to establish two new technical assistance centers. These centers are designed to collect and disseminate information on mental health disorders, mental health disorder risk factors, mental health services, mental health service access, relevant support services, reducing seclusion and restraints, and family participation in mental health service decision-making-- exclusively for children and adolescents with or at risk of mental health disorders.

The third objective that this legislation seeks to meet is for the Federal Government to develop a policy specifically designed to meet the unique mental health needs of children and adolescents. The legislation authorizes $10 million for the establishment of an interagency coordinating committee consisting of all Federal officials whose departments or agencies oversee mental health activities for children and adolescents. Modeled after language in the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, my legislation requires the coordinating committee to consult with outside parties, develop a Federal policy exclusively pertaining to child and adolescent mental health, and report annually to Congress on specific challenges and solutions associated with comprehensively addressing the mental health needs of children and adolescents.

The fourth and final objective that this legislation seeks to meet is increasing the amount of research into child and adolescent mental health. Only through intensive research can we develop evidence-based best practices that allow us to develop services that fully meet the mental health needs of our children. Towards that end, my legislation authorizes a new grant of $12.5 million for States, localities, institutions of higher education and private nonprofit organizations to identify and research current service, training and information awareness gaps in mental health delivery systems for children and adolescents. My legislation also authorizes $12.5 million to enhance comprehensive Federal research and evaluation of promising best practices, existing disparities, psychotropic medications, trauma, recovery and rehabilitation, and co-occurring disorders as they relate to child and adolescent mental health.

My colleague on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Chairman Enzi, has indicated a desire to bring up the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration reauthorization measure soon. It is my hope that this legislation can contribute to that reauthorization effort.

I would like to conclude by saying that this legislation, while comprehensive, is a first step--not a complete solution--towards fully meeting the challenge of ensuring the resiliency of our children and adolescents. We need to continue working together--young people, families, doctors, counselors, nurses, teachers, advocates, and policymakers--since we all have a stake, either professional or personal--in this issue. Only by working together can we develop effective and compassionate ways through which every young person in this nation is given a solid foundation upon which to reach his or her dreams in life.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that seeks to meet the mental health needs of children and adolescents.

I believe that the task of ensuring the emotional well-being and resiliency of our young people is one of paramount importance. We all know that mental health is a critical component contributing to a child's general health and ability to grow--both intellectually and physically. Yet, the task of ensuring the mental health of children and adolescents is not an easy one. In fact, it is arguably one of the most difficult and largely unspoken tasks facing our Nation today.

According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, one in ten children and adolescents suffers from mental health disorders serious enough to cause some level of impairment. Out of these young people, only one in five receives the specialty mental health services they require.

These startling statistics prompted former Surgeon General Dr. David Satcher to convene a conference in 1999 that examined the mental health needs of children. The conference--composed of some of the Nation's leading experts in mental and public health--published a seminal report that concluded that `` . . . the burden of suffering experienced by children with mental illness and their families has created a health crisis in this country.'' The report further concluded that ``. . . there is broad evidence that the Nation lacks a unified infrastructure to help children suffering from mental illness.''

I would like to submit for the Record personal testimony offered by three families in Connecticut. I believe their words and experiences speak most directly to the ``burden of suffering'' described in Surgeon General Satcher's report--a burden endured by millions of children, adolescents, and then families nationwide. I ask unanimous consent that this testimony be printed in the Record.

I thank these families for sharing their personal experiences with me, and for following me to share their experiences publicly. More importantly, I commend their tenacity in facing the challenges they face each and every day in caring for their children. Their stories, along with the stories I have heard from other families in Connecticut and elsewhere in the country, have fueled my belief that child and adolescent mental health needs to be a top priority.

Recognizing the fragmentation of the Nation's mental health delivery system, Surgeon General Satcher's report concluded that one fundamental way to meet the mental--health needs of children and adolescents is to ``. . . move towards a community-based mental health delivery system that balances health promotion, disease prevention, early detection, and universal access to care.'' The report further stated eight goals to ensure the resiliency of children and adolescents. These goals were: first, to promote public awareness of children's mental health issues and reduce stigma associated with mental illness; second, to continue to develop, disseminate, and implement scientifically-proven prevention and treatment services in the field of children's mental health; third, to improve the assessment of and recognition of mental health needs in children; fourth, to eliminate racial, ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in access to mental health care services; fifth, to improve the infrastructure for children's mental health services, including support for scientifically-proven interventions across professions; sixth, to increase access to and coordination of quality mental health care services; seventh, to train frontline providers to recognize and manage mental health issues, and educate mental healthcare providers about scientifically-proven prevention and treatment services, and; finally, to monitor the access to and coordination of quality mental health care services.

In 2002, President Bush established the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health to study three obstacles identified by the President that prevent Americans with mental illness from getting the care they require. These obstacles were identified as the stigma that surrounds mental health care, a lack of mental health parity, and the fragmented mental health delivery system. In 2003, the President's New Freedom Commission issued a report that made a series of recommendations on how the Nation's mental health system could be transformed for the better. Like Surgeon General Satcher's report, this publication also set forth a series of goals. They were: first, to ensure Americans understand that mental health is essential to overall health; second, to ensure that mental health care is consumer- and family-driven; third, to eliminate disparities in mental health care services; fourth, to ensure that

early mental health screening, assessment, and referral services are common practices; fifth, to ensure that excellent mental health care is delivered and research is accelerated, and; finally, to ensure that technology is used to access mental health care and information.

I describe these two reports because the legislation I am introducing today seeks to address the recommendations they espouse. My legislation, the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Resiliency Act of 2006, authorizes $210 million in an effort to meet five principal objectives.

The first objective is to increase access to, and improve the quality of, mental health care services delivered to children and adolescents. My legislation seeks to meet this objective in several ways.

First, it authorizes a new grant of $50 million for States to develop and implement a comprehensive mental health plan exclusively for children and adolescents that provides community-based mental health early intervention and prevention services and relevant support services, such as primary health care, education, transportation and housing. The plan would have to meet a set of core operational and evaluative requirements and would have to be developed through extensive outside consultation with children and adolescents, their families, advocates and health professionals.

Second, my legislation authorizes two matching grants of $22.5 million each for community health centers--many of which primarily serve low-income populations and primary health care facilities, such as a pediatrician's office, to provide community-based mental health services in coordination with community mental health centers and/or trained mental health professionals.

Third, my legislation authorizes a new grant of $22.5 million for States, localities and private nonprofit organizations--e.g., school districts--to provide community-based mental health services in schools appropriate mental health training activities to relevant school and health professionals.

Fourth, my legislation authorizes a new grant of $20 million for States, localities and private nonprofit organizations to provide community-based mental health services specifically for at-risk mothers and their children.

Fifth, my legislation authorizes a new grant of $10 million for States, localities and private nonprofit organizations to provide community-based mental health services for children and adolescents in juvenile justice systems.

Sixth, my legislation authorizes $10 million for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish, run and evaluate a demonstration project that improves the ability of local case managers to work across the mental health, public health, substance abuse, child welfare, education, juvenile justice and social services systems in a State.

Finally, my legislation requires States to meet their statutory obligations to fund fully mental health screening services under the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment Services Program. It also requires current successful initiatives, such as the Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services for Children with Serious Emotional Disturbance Program, the Community Mental Health Services Performance Partnership Block Grant, the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant, and the Jail Diversion Program, to expand their scope with respect to certain reporting, evaluative, and service activities.

The second objective my legislation seeks to meet is ensuring greater public awareness and greater family participation in mental health services decision-making. Towards this end, my legislation does the following:

First, it authorizes a new grant of $10 million for States, localities and private nonprofit organizations to develop policies that enable families of children and adolescents with mental health disorders to have increased control and choice over mental health services provided and received through a publicly-funded mental health system.

Second, it authorizes a new grant of $10 million for private nonprofit organizations to provide information on child and adolescent mental health disorders, services, support services and respite care to families of children and adolescents with or who are at risk for mental health disorders.

Third, it authorizes a new grant of $10 million for private nonprofit organizations to develop community coalitions and public education activities that promote child and adolescent resiliency.

In addition, my legislation authorizes $10 million to establish two new technical assistance centers. These centers are designed to collect and disseminate information on mental health disorders, mental health disorder risk factors, mental health services, mental health service access, relevant support services, reducing seclusion and restraints, and family participation in mental health service decision-making-- exclusively for children and adolescents with or at risk of mental health disorders.

The third objective that this legislation seeks to meet is for the Federal Government to develop a policy specifically designed to meet the unique mental health needs of children and adolescents. The legislation authorizes $10 million for the establishment of an interagency coordinating committee consisting of all Federal officials whose departments or agencies oversee mental health activities for children and adolescents. Modeled after language in the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, my legislation requires the coordinating committee to consult with outside parties, develop a Federal policy exclusively pertaining to child and adolescent mental health, and report annually to Congress on specific challenges and solutions associated with comprehensively addressing the mental health needs of children and adolescents.

The fourth and final objective that this legislation seeks to meet is increasing the amount of research into child and adolescent mental health. Only through intensive research can we develop evidence-based best practices that allow us to develop services that fully meet the mental health needs of our children. Towards that end, my legislation authorizes a new grant of $12.5 million for States, localities, institutions of higher education and private nonprofit organizations to identify and research current service, training and information awareness gaps in mental health delivery systems for children and adolescents. My legislation also authorizes $12.5 million to enhance comprehensive Federal research and evaluation of promising best practices, existing disparities, psychotropic medications, trauma, recovery and rehabilitation, and co-occurring disorders as they relate to child and adolescent mental health.

My colleague on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Chairman Enzi, has indicated a desire to bring up the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration reauthorization measure soon. It is my hope that this legislation can contribute to that reauthorization effort.

I would like to conclude by saying that this legislation, while comprehensive, is a first step--not a complete solution--towards fully meeting the challenge of ensuring the resiliency of our children and adolescents. We need to continue working together--young people, families, doctors, counselors, nurses, teachers, advocates, and policymakers--since we all have a stake, either professional or personal--in this issue. Only by working together can we develop effective and compassionate ways through which every young person in this nation is given a solid foundation upon which to reach his or her dreams in life.

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

Mr. President, I rise to briefly state my reasons for opposing the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to serve as a judge on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Court.

I must say at the outset that I regret having to cast this vote. Throughout my tenure here in the Senate, I have supported the vast majority of presidential nominees--regardless of the party to which a president has belonged. With regard to the current administration, I have joined with my colleagues in voting to confirm the overwhelming majority of its judicial nominees--including those with whom I differed on matters of legal and public policy. I had assumed that, when nominated, Mr. Kavanaugh would likely be among this large group of judicial nominees to receive broad bipartisan support. After all, he has a commendable academic background, and served as a law clerk to two Circuit Court judges and one Supreme Court Justice.

However, it appears--that after emerging from a confirmation process where his conduct can be described as disappointing at best, and dismissive at worst--Mr. Kavanaugh has practically invited opposition to his nomination. In my view, there are few duties more important to the Senate than the consideration of the nomination of article III jurists. Other than considering a declaration of war or an amendment to the Constitution, nothing is more important than deciding on a judicial nominee. The reasons for that view are practically self-evident: article III judges are appointed for life, and they are appointed to lead and populate an entirely separate branch of government. Our entire constitutional framework rests on an act of faith, first taken by our Founders, that is in some respects as audacious as it is vital: that the President will nominate, and the Senate will confirm, only those judicial nominees who demonstrate the temperament, intellect, experience, and character to stand independent of the executive and legislative branches of government and hold those branches accountable to the law. If a nominee does not demonstrate those qualities during the nomination process, if he or she does not show a capacity to render independent judgments and uphold the principle of equal justice under law, then the outcome of a vote on that nomination is, in this Senator's view, a foregone conclusion: the nomination must be opposed.

During Mr. Kavanaugh's two confirmation hearings, he failed to demonstrate the requisite qualifications for the high position to which he has been nominated. He failed to provide meaningful responses to many of the questions put to him. After his first hearing, he delayed providing any answers at all to written questions for seven months. It was not until after the 2004 elections that he finally decided to provide those answers. When asked the reason for this delay, he offered only a feeble rationale, saying he took responsibility for what he termed a ``misunderstanding''. I found this explanation to be implausible, to say the least. As Associate White House Counsel, one of Mr. Kavanaugh's responsibilities was to prepare judicial nominees to successfully navigate the confirmation process. So for him to say he

had a ``misunderstanding'' about the need to promptly answer questions put to him by Senators strains credulity.

Mr. Kavanaugh also failed to provide full and candid answers to important questions about his role and views in helping to shape some of the administration's most controversial policies--from the development of legal rationales for torture to the drafting of Executive orders to reduce the public's access to presidential records. He also refused to tell the committee on what types of matters, if any, he would recuse himself if such matters came before him as a judge.

This refusal to be forthcoming with the Judiciary Committee--and by implication, with the Senate as a whole--bespeaks a dismissive attitude toward the confirmation process that I find highly troubling. We have seen in recent years a growing tendency of candidates to treat the confirmation process more as a game of hide-and-seek than a profoundly serious process designed by the Senate to provide Senators with the information that they need to make careful, reasoned decisions about nominees. If candidates do not provide vital information about their background and their views, they make it impossible for Senators to adequately discharge their constitutional duty to advise and consent with respect to article III nominees.

I would be remiss if I did not also mention two other facts about this nomination that make it highly unusual. One is that the American Bar Association, ABA, downgraded its rating of the nominee, from ``highly qualified'' to ``qualified''. Six of the eight members of the ABA committee who voted previously on this nomination voted to downgrade his nomination based on new information about his ability to act independently and his sparse record as a judge and legal practitioner. It also bears mentioning that this nominee, if confirmed, would be one of the least experienced judges to have served on this particular court. Only former Judge Kenneth Starr had less experience.

For these reasons, I must oppose this nomination. I hope that, if confirmed, this nominee will prove me wrong by growing into a wise, independent, and fair-minded jurist. But regrettably, at this time, he has given the Senate paltry and insufficient facts on which to believe he is prepared for the high office to which he has been nominated.

Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about the nomination of General Michael V. Hayden to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. I regret that I was not able to vote to confirm his nomination at this time, and I would like to take a few minutes to explain my vote.

As my colleagues may know, I voted to confirm General Hayden when he was nominated to be the Deputy Director of National Intelligence, DNI. I stand by that vote for two reasons. First, General Hayden is obviously qualified on paper to fill the position. Second, he was serving as Deputy to the current DNI, John Negroponte. So there was a clear line of authority.

But today when the Senate voted on his nomination to be Director of the CIA, these two circumstances were significantly different. First, issues like the potentially illegal wiretapping of American citizens' phone lines by the National Security Agency--a program which General Hayden reportedly designed and ran--have come to light. And second, he will no longer be serving as a deputy but as head of one of our Nation's premier intelligence agencies--yet he is not resigning his commission as a uniformed officer. That raises the question of whether and to what degree he will be independent from decisions made at the Pentagon.

Some of my colleagues have insisted that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld will no longer be in the chain of command overseeing General Hayden in his position at the CIA. Certainly, there is precedent for uniformed officers serving as head of the CIA. However, when we look at this precedent we also have to realize that circumstances have changed. A not insignificant part of the reason that we invaded Iraq is because our Nation's intelligence was politicized, and because intelligence activities were manipulated to justify a predetermined conclusion--that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Much of this intelligence manipulation was performed by intelligence bureaus within the Pentagon, under the supervision of Secretary Rumsfeld, who has been steadily expanding the Pentagon's role in U.S. intelligence activities. It would seem to this Senator that given Secretary Rumsfeld's track record, concentrating intelligence in his hands would be unwise to say the least.

The truth is that we don't really know how much independence General Hayden will show with respect to the Secretary of Defense. After all, he is a military officer, with an active commission. And the record is mixed with respect to predicting how the cards will fall. On one hand, there are reports that he stood up to Secretary Rumsfeld and other political appointees in the President's Cabinet on certain occasions. On the other hand, he reportedly designed and strongly supported a program to wiretap the homes of American citizens, whose legality is in question.

If he was just following orders, these circumstances raise serious questions about his ability to exercise independence as Director of the CIA. If, as is widely believed, he was the driving force behind the NSA's wiretapping program, then I question his ability to balance the important need to defend our Nation from threats with the equally important need to protect constitutional rights of all Americans.

I frankly think it is a shame that Congress didn't take a few more days, or even a couple of weeks, to more deeply probe these fundamental issues of security and liberty. Indeed, if this body had taken sufficient steps to get answers about the NSA's wiretapping program, and if General Hayden had considered leaving his role as an active military officer during his tenure as CIA Director, then it is possible that the concerns I mentioned might have been alleviated.

I also regret the fact, however, that President Bush didn't pick somebody who was equally qualified but not tied in to controversial programs such as collecting telephone information and listening in to conversations between American citizens. Because in this time of difficulty for the CIA, we don't just need someone who is qualified, we also need someone who is credible. While the extent of General Hayden's involvement in these activities is as yet unclear, I am concerned that his role could potentially undermine his ability to carry out his duties as head of the CIA.

Mr. President, despite some opposition, General Hayden was confirmed earlier this morning by the Senate. At this juncture, I can only hope that he proves my concerns to be unfounded. I wish him only the best in pursuing a goal that I know we all share--the safety and well-being of American citizens in this time of war.

Mr. President, will the manager withhold?

Mr. President, I rise today to share my views on the work that the Senate has undertaken over the last several weeks on a very difficult and complex issue--comprehensive immigration reform. Before I start, I would like to acknowledge the work of many of my colleagues, who have spent years attempting to address various aspects of this issue and who have worked in good faith to get us to the place we find ourselves as we conclude debate on the legislation before us.

Last month when the Senate first began consideration of this matter, the process fell apart rather suddenly because of procedural issues regarding which and how many amendments would be offered. These were legitimate concerns, since nearly 400 amendments were introduced, and since many of those amendments were intended to gut that measure.

In order to get this reform right, we need to address all three components of immigration--border security and enforcement, guest worker programs and, for undocumented workers who are currently in the U.S., a path to ``earned'' citizenship. We need to also reconcile the fact that we are nation of immigrants with ongoing legitimate economic, social and national security concerns related to the undocumented individuals currently within our borders and the impact of continuing to welcome newcomers to our Nation has on those concerns.

But let me be clear from the outset. Immigration reform must first and foremost be about protecting America's national security, economy, and citizens from the myriad challenges we face in the 21st century. We must have

no higher priorities than these. Fundamentally protecting our national security means securing our borders.

I believe that the bill before us, with all the additions we have made as the Senate has worked its will on this measure, is an imperfect document, but probably the best we are going to achieve given the polarizing nature of many of the issues that have been debated, adopted and rejected.

On a positive note, the bill does set the stage for the United States to greatly increase control over our borders and help prevent individuals from illegally entering our country. Among other things, it would provide advanced border security technologies to assist those tasked with protecting our borders. And it would improve our ability to enforce our immigration laws by making structural reforms and increasing personnel and funding levels where they are needed most. It would also double the size of the border patrol over 5 years, adding 12,000 new agents to patrol our borders. It would expand the number of interior enforcement officers by 1,000 per year over each of the next 5 years. It would utilize advanced technologies to improve surveillance along the border, creating a ``virtual fence'' to detect and apprehend people who are illegally attempting to enter this country. And it would create new and increased penalties for individuals trying to subvert our borders with tunnels, or who attempt to smuggle people into the

Mr. President I listened to the remarks of Senator Kyl concerning the inclusion in the managers' package of the holding of consultations at Federal, State and local levels on both sides of border before fence construction occurs. I think I know something about this issue because it was my amendment. Senator Kyl suggested in his remarks that consultations would give the Mexican Government veto power over the building of a fence. Nothing could be farther from the truth, and nothing in that amendment would impede the ability of the U.S. Government to construct a fence in manner the of our choosing.

But it is simply common sense and common courtesy to consult those individuals in our own communities and

in affected communities on the other side of the border before constructing a fence. Why? Because the fence alone is not going to stop the flow of illegal immigration into the United States. It is going to take a cooperative effort between the United States and Mexico. My amendment seeks to foster the kind of cooperation that is vital if we are going to once and for all secure our borders.

I thank the President for the opportunity to clarify this matter.

Mr. President, I am glad our math is good here this morning. I appreciate that early in the day.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his leadership on this bill and his eloquence this morning on this amendment being offered by our colleague from Kentucky. I commend our colleague from Illinois as well for his eloquent comments about the problems associated with this amendment.

Very bluntly and very squarely, if the McConnell amendment is adopted in the next 20 minutes, then roughly 142 million people in our country would have to have a new--a new--photo identification, one which does not exist yet, that complies with REAL ID by the elections in 2008. Otherwise, you could not vote a regular ballot in the 2008 Federal elections without this new identification.

My colleague cites polling data that indicates that 62 percent of Americans believe a photo identification may be necessary. They were not asked whether or not they knew they would have to have a completely new identification, which I presume they would have to pay for, and if they don't have it with them by election day 2008, then they would not be allowed to show up and vote a regular ballot in person for presidential and other federal candidates across the country. So 142 million people could be disenfranchised by this amendment if we end up requiring a new photo identification.

Now, it has been said over and over again this morning--it needs to be repeated--it was Patrick Henry who said, more than 200 years ago: The right to vote is the right upon which all other rights depend. It is the essential right. The idea we would somehow exclude people who are elderly or disabled or people who, for a variety of reasons, do not have or cannot get this new photo identification from having access to the ballot because of some anecdotal evidence that people may show up and pretend to be someone else--because that is the only set of circumstances we are talking about here.

Absentee ballots present a unique set of problems. This does not cover the absentee ballots. It does not cover the situations where people mail in votes under a different set of circumstances in some of our States. This amendment only addresses the situation in which someone shows up to vote claiming to be someone else, when, in fact, they are a different individual.

So I would hope our colleagues, recognizing the tremendous problems this

amendment could afford us, would reject this amendment. We had this debate 4 years ago when we adopted the Help America Vote Act. What we said is, if you register by mail, then the first time you show up at the polls, you need some form of identification, and, in fact, a photo identification may be one of them. But it is not the only thing that can be a source of identification for first time voters who registered by mail. There may be a variety of other criteria that States would adopt.

In a sense, we are going to nationalize and Federalize every single State by this approach. States, as we have historically said, determine the specific requirements of registration. Some States require very little. That is their judgment. Other States require more. We stayed away from dictating to States exactly what they had to do in the Help America Vote Act. If you adopt this amendment, why not consider an amendment for national registration? Many advocate that.

I think it may be a sound idea to move to a national registration. The HAVA bill moved from local registration to Statewide registration, which is a major step forward. But here we are saying you are going to have to have one size fits all, one identification, and we do not even know what it looks like yet--it does not exist at all--which has to comply with the REAL ID requirements between now and election day 2008. And if you do not have it, then you could be refused a regular ballot and forced to vote provisionally.

Obviously, access to the ballot has been critical for us. We have balanced that right to try to ensure, to the extent possible, that the ballot is going to be secure. But if we err on any side of that equation, it has been historically to err on the side of access to make sure people are encouraged to participate. Thus, the reason, in the HAVA bill, why we have provisional balloting--for the first time that will exist--it is so that if you show up and there is a contest as to whether or not you have the right to vote, the law says you should be able to cast a provisional ballot, so that after the election, after the ballots are cast, or the polling places are closed, if, in fact, you, the voter, were right, the ballot counts. If you were wrong, obviously, it does not, but you have a right to find out why it was not counted in order to be able to correct the problem.

Provisional ballots are making it possible for people to vote who believe they have the right to vote, to cast a ballot. That right has not existed in the past. That is the direction we are heading in as a country, not going backwards, not retreating, and not creating obstacles and hurdles to cast those ballots. That, unfortunately, would be the outcome if the McConnell amendment were adopted.

Every major civil rights organization, every leading organization defending the disabled and the elderly are opposed to this amendment and are very worried about what it could mean if it were adopted.

So I urge my colleagues, at this early hour in the morning: Please, when you come here, this is not the place for this amendment on an immigration bill. There is a time and opportunity to go back and revisit election issues. I hope we do that at some point. But to cherry-pick a provision that would set us back decades would be a mistake.

The right to vote is one of the most fundamental civil rights accorded to citizens by the United States Constitution. The right of all Americans to vote, and to have their vote counted, is the cornerstone of our democratic form of government. It is at the heart of all we do here, and precedes other rights because it is the means by which we choose those who represent us. The free and unencumbered exercise of the franchise is a core pre-condition of a government that is of the people, by the people and for the people.

This amendment would jeopardize efforts to balance the traditional requirements of ballot access and ballot security; impinge unnecessarily on those fundamental rights; create a disparate impact on whole classes of our citizens; and effectively impose a new form of poll tax on millions of American voters.

Public confidence in the integrity of final election results is likely to be judged to a large extent by how well our laws balance the twin goals of expanded ballot access and enhanced ballot security, a fact that should remain foremost in our minds as we move forward on this debate in the coming days.

This amendment would dangerously undermine that delicate balance. Where difficult questions on these issues arise, my bias has always been to err on the side of expanded ballot access for all eligible voters. That should be no surprise to anyone who has been in the Senate or watched its deliberations in recent years, including the debate three years ago on the Help America Vote Act.

We must do all we can to ensure that the fundamental right to vote can be exercised freely, even while taking appropriate precautions to prevent usually isolated acts of individual voter fraud.

The McConnell amendment before us would effectively mandate a one- size-fits-all voter identification solution for every voter, every State, and the territories regardless of their circumstances, resources or preferences.

Every American citizen who is eligible to vote today in a Federal election would be effectively rendered ineligible to vote in the Presidential election of November 2008 by this amendment. Under this amendment, even those Americans who were born in this country and have been voting in every election since they turned 18 would be unable to vote in the November 2008 Presidential election, unless they first obtain a new REAL ID/citizenship card, or its equivalent.

This is a sea change in the rules of access for voters to every polling place in the United States. Under this amendment, everyone, every voter would have to present a REAL ID/citizenship card to vote a regular ballot at the polls.

My colleagues may remember the stories of dogs and dead people voting in the 2000 Presidential election. To respond to individual fraud in election registration, Congress adopted a measured, two-part response: a new identification for first time voters who register by mail and a computerized statewide voter registration system. Under HAVA, the States must have the computerized voter registration system in place this year. And the States are working diligently to accomplish that.

But this amendment goes much farther and without any justification, without any evidence of widespread fraud, effectively disenfranchises every single American voter who is eligible to vote in Federal elections today.

The only fraud that this amendment purports to address is the situation in which a voter appears, in person, at the polls and claims to be someone else. During all of the hearings that the Rules Committee held on election reform following the debacle of the 2000 Presidential elections, including the hearings held by my distinguished friend, the author of this amendment--who was Chairman of the Rules Committee at the time--not one witness testified to widespread fraud by individuals appearing in person at the polls claiming to be someone they were not.

And Congress isn't the only body which failed to find more than anecdotal evidence of such fraud.

Just last year, the bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform, co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, also failed to find the fraud that this amendment is designed to address.

Let me quote from the September 2005 Carter-Baker Commission Report:

There is no evidence of extensive fraud in U.S. elections

or of multiple voting, but both could occur, and it could

affect the outcome of a close election.

So even though neither Congress, nor the esteemed private Carter- Baker Commission, could find the type of fraud that would justify a national citizenship voting card, this amendment would literally jeopardize the voting rights of every single American citizen in order to combat this phantom fraud.

And yet the fraud that the bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission was concerned about--that of fraud committed through absentee balloting--is not even addressed by this amendment.

Again, quoting from the 2005 Carter-Baker Commission Report:

Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential

voter fraud.

But does this amendment apply to absentee balloting or vote by mail?

No--it applies only to those American citizens who make the effort to get up on election day and go to the polls, stand in line--sometimes for hours--and publicly present themselves to vote.

This amendment would change the law to effectively federalize what has always been a State and local determination. It would establish a one-size-fits-all Federal REAL ID/citizenship card, based on a law that has itself not been fully implemented.

It mandates that every State implement a system which uses these new cards by May 11, 2008--less than two years from now, and during a period when we will almost certainly face a hotly contested Presidential election. If this amendment is adopted, the resulting chaos will undermine the results of the 2008 Presidential election to the point that not even the Supreme Court will be able to determine the winner.

No one in this Chamber can say with any certainty how this is going to work, if at all, or that it will not further disenfranchise vulnerable voters. In my view, it almost certainly will.

This is not the time, nor the vehicle, to be debating election reforms that will most assuredly disenfranchise American citizens, particularly the poor, minorities, the elderly, and the disabled.

These voting issues are important, and as I have said, I would welcome a full and comprehensive debate on how to expand access for all Americans to enable them to more effectively and easily register and vote in Federal elections, while preserving ballot security.

I have introduced legislation on that issue in this Congress, and would like to have it considered soon. We could and should have a full debate on how best to balance the twin goals of expanded ballot access with appropriate ballot security. But now is neither the time nor the place for that debate. This is not what we should be doing on this bill.

I am also concerned about amending HAVA now. I intend to oppose any amendment that would open up the Help America Vote Act before the law is fully implemented in time for the fall Federal elections in 2006.

We have already had over 10 primaries and we are less than six months prior to the general mid-term elections. States are working hard to come into compliance with the new requirements of accessible voting systems and statewide voter registration list. Voters are working hard to understand the new circumstances and new technologies they will be facing in the 2006 elections, and are being educated on how to exercise their rights to ensure an equal opportunity for all to cast a vote and have that vote counted.

Many of us know that no single law is the comprehensive and perfect fix for a number of problems which have existed for decades in our decentralized election system. HAVA was a landmark law, the next step in a march which included the Voting Rights Act, NVRA legislation, and other measures. HAVA made appropriate changes to the law in the wake of the 2000 election debacle, and did so with broad, bipartisan support.

And I am sure there are a host of improvements that could be made to HAVA. I have some in mind myself. But HAVA deserves to be fully and effectively implemented before taking the next steps toward broader reform.

If this Senate wishes to debate election reforms, I am prepared to do so for days to come. There are numerous reforms which the Senate should be considering.

If we are prepared to impose a universal voting ID on Americans, then we should also establish a universal Federal registration requirement for voting. If we are going to preempt the rights of States to determine who is eligible to vote in a Federal election, then perhaps we should preempt the rights of States to decide whether or not they will count that Federal ballot.

If we are going to federalize identification requirements for voting, then perhaps we should federalize eligibility requirements for absentee voting.

If we want to ensure that the vote of every eligible American citizen has equal weight, then maybe we should federalize the administration of Federal elections.

But that is not the approach that my colleague, Senator McConnell, and I took in developing the bipartisan Help America Vote Act. And that is not the approach that the Congress and President Bush took in passing and signing into law the Help America Vote Act. And nothing in the intervening 3\1/2\ years has changed to suggest that either HAVA isn't working, or that the American people support the kind of sea change that this amendment creates.

HAVA was a carefully crafted balance between the twin goals of making it easier to vote and harder to defraud the system. This amendment destroys the necessary balance between ballot access and ballot security--a balance that is key to ensuring the integrity of Federal election results.

If we are equally concerned about both access to the ballot box and potential fraud, then we should not enact an amendment which, by operation of its provisions, will potentially prevent every single eligible citizen from voting in the 2008 Presidential election.

And if we are truly concerned about potential voting fraud, then we should give the States the opportunity to complete implementation of HAVA and allow that new law to work before we enact a new requirement which on its face will disrupt the delicate balance HAVA created.

HAVA needs to be allowed to work. And for that reason, a broad Coalition of civil rights and voting rights groups, and organizations representing State and local governments, oppose this amendment.

This Coalition letter makes clear that in their view, the six-month period prior to Federal mid-term elections, as we are implementing HAVA, is not the time, nor is the immigration bill the vehicle, to attempt to make highly controversial changes to the way voters qualify for access to the ballot box. Specifically, the Coalition letter rejects this amendment because, and I quote:

The amendment raises voter identification issues without

deliberation, further complicates unrealistic implementation

deadlines for the REAL ID Act, creates a mandate for an

identification tool not yet available, and undermines the

continuing efforts of the States to enfranchise every

eligible voter through the Help America Vote Act of 2002,

``HAVA''.

Mr. President, any amendment which attempts to impose additional new Federal election reforms must include proposals which balance the competing goals of expanded ballot access and ballot security. My hope is that the Senate will make clear that effective election reform is not just about one of those aspects, but must address both. Some in this body have maintained a continuing misplaced emphasis on security at the expense of access. It is the duty of this Congress to ensure that both goals are protected and preserved for all Americans.

I urge rejection of the McConnell amendment.

Mr. President, let me again quote from the Carter-Baker commission report regarding the very proposal that is before us:

There is no evidence of extensive fraud in U.S. elections

or of multiple voting. It could occur and it could affect the

outcome, but there is no evidence that exists today.

What is true is if this amendment were adopted, there are clearly people who will show up to vote who will not be allowed to vote a regular ballot because, under this legislation, in May of 2008, if you don't have this nonexisting voter card, you will not be allowed to vote. I don't care how long you have lived here, how many elections you have participated in, this is a national requirement that will exist in May of 2008. And out of 142 million people who have a right to vote, there is likely to be a substantial number who would be disenfranchised. This is the wrong direction to be going based on an anecdotal piece of evidence about people who show up to vote and claim to be someone else.

And that is why the Carter-Baker Commission recommendations on voter ID included a number of other reforms to provide a failsafe against this result. These additional components of the voter ID recommendation include allowing affidavit voting, with signature verification, until 2010. Thereafter, the Commission recommends that voters who did not have their ID could return to the appropriate election official within 48 hours of voting and provide the ID. But those failsafe provisions are not included in the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky.

Absentee balloting is an area that could take some work when it comes to addressing fraud, but even the Carter-Baker Commission concluded that fraud could not be documented in the case of in-person voting. To take this immigration legislation we have worked months to craft, and include the consideration of this ID proposal--and we rejected it only 4 years ago--to open up just this part of the Help America Vote Act, disregarding everything else, is the wrong step to take on an immigration bill.

Again, I emphasize, every civil rights organization, every group representing the elderly and disabled is urging colleagues to reject this amendment. This would be a major step backwards when it comes to election reform.

At the proper time I will offer a motion to table. My colleague from Kentucky wants to be heard.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from State and local coalitions and civil rights groups be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I move to table the McConnell amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with the distinguished Chairman of the Rules Committee, legislation to ensure that the blind and those with disabilities continue to have free access to electronic editions of periodicals and newspapers. This service is an extension of the existing authorization for the Library of

Congress to provide Braille books, recordings, sound reproduction equipment, musical scores, and other materials to the blind and physically disabled individuals.

Currently, the National Federation of the Blind provides these services through its NFB-NEWSLINE program which has been funded by the Library of Congress through its Books for the Blind program. The NFB- NEWSLINE program is a telephone-based electronic audio newspaper service serving our Nation's 1.3 million blind Americans by providing 23 million minutes of on-demand service in response to 2,600 calls per day at an average cost of 2.7 cents per minute.

Congress established the Books for the Blind program within the Library of Congress in 1931. The program is administered by the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, NLS, which continues to be the primary source of Braille and audio books and magazines for blind adults today. However, until development of the NFB-NEWSLINE program, it was not economically feasible for NLS to provide timely access to newspapers for the blind. Under current production methods, it would require several weeks for NLS to prepare and deliver a single copy of a daily newspaper.

The NFB-NEWSLINE program, however, is designed for real time rapid distribution of the electronic text of newspapers. Under this program, the blind can access daily newspapers on the day of publication through telephone access to the digital text. The funding for this program has been provided by a public-private partnership between NFB-NEWSLINE, state sponsors, including public libraries, rehabilitation agencies, and several affiliates of NFB, and the Library of Congress. Newspaper and magazine content is contributed by many participating news organization and publishers.

The bill Senator Lott and I are introducing today will ensure the continued Federal share of this partnership so that NFB-NEWSLINE can continue to serve as the multi-state provider of this service. Currently, NFB-NEWSLINE provides some level of service to all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico by providing local dialing numbers for the blind and disabled to use to access newspapers and periodicals. The annual telecommunications costs for this service is approximately $750,000 which serves approximately 40 percent of the eligible readers.

This bill will enable NFB-NEWSLINE to continue to serve existing readers with improved services while at the same time expanding services to more readers. The bill authorizes $750,000 for this service in fiscal year 2007 and such sums as are necessary in fiscal years 2008-2011. This is a very efficient program that for a very small Federal investment will allow the blind and disabled to more fully participate in their communities through access to the daily news. With the current state of technology, it is simply unacceptable that the blind and disabled do not have real time access to daily newspapers and periodicals.

I commend NFB-NEWSLINE for developing this public-private partnership to serve the needs of the blind and disabled individuals and I pleased to introduce this legislation to ensure the continuation of this program.

Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with the distinguished Chairman of the Rules Committee, legislation to ensure that the blind and those with disabilities continue to have free access to electronic editions of periodicals and newspapers. This service is an extension of the existing authorization for the Library of

Congress to provide Braille books, recordings, sound reproduction equipment, musical scores, and other materials to the blind and physically disabled individuals.

Currently, the National Federation of the Blind provides these services through its NFB-NEWSLINE program which has been funded by the Library of Congress through its Books for the Blind program. The NFB- NEWSLINE program is a telephone-based electronic audio newspaper service serving our Nation's 1.3 million blind Americans by providing 23 million minutes of on-demand service in response to 2,600 calls per day at an average cost of 2.7 cents per minute.

Congress established the Books for the Blind program within the Library of Congress in 1931. The program is administered by the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, NLS, which continues to be the primary source of Braille and audio books and magazines for blind adults today. However, until development of the NFB-NEWSLINE program, it was not economically feasible for NLS to provide timely access to newspapers for the blind. Under current production methods, it would require several weeks for NLS to prepare and deliver a single copy of a daily newspaper.

The NFB-NEWSLINE program, however, is designed for real time rapid distribution of the electronic text of newspapers. Under this program, the blind can access daily newspapers on the day of publication through telephone access to the digital text. The funding for this program has been provided by a public-private partnership between NFB-NEWSLINE, state sponsors, including public libraries, rehabilitation agencies, and several affiliates of NFB, and the Library of Congress. Newspaper and magazine content is contributed by many participating news organization and publishers.

The bill Senator Lott and I are introducing today will ensure the continued Federal share of this partnership so that NFB-NEWSLINE can continue to serve as the multi-state provider of this service. Currently, NFB-NEWSLINE provides some level of service to all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico by providing local dialing numbers for the blind and disabled to use to access newspapers and periodicals. The annual telecommunications costs for this service is approximately $750,000 which serves approximately 40 percent of the eligible readers.

This bill will enable NFB-NEWSLINE to continue to serve existing readers with improved services while at the same time expanding services to more readers. The bill authorizes $750,000 for this service in fiscal year 2007 and such sums as are necessary in fiscal years 2008-2011. This is a very efficient program that for a very small Federal investment will allow the blind and disabled to more fully participate in their communities through access to the daily news. With the current state of technology, it is simply unacceptable that the blind and disabled do not have real time access to daily newspapers and periodicals.

I commend NFB-NEWSLINE for developing this public-private partnership to serve the needs of the blind and disabled individuals and I pleased to introduce this legislation to ensure the continuation of this program.

Mr. President, I ask my colleague for a couple minutes, if I may.

In relation to matters before us on this bill.

Four minutes.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman very much. I just want to make some brief comments, if I may, not about the matter of this amendment right before us, but about a vote that occurred yesterday regarding the construction of the fence along the southern border. I was 1 of 16 people who voted against that amendment, and I wanted to take a minute or so to explain my concerns.

Primarily, my concern is because the decision to place this fence down here without any other additional consultation with local communities in the United States or with our neighbors to the south is something that worries me. There are implications of that. I firmly believe that any discussion

about immigration policy must begin with border security. If there is a failure to do that, I don't think you have much of an audience.

My concern is if we unilaterally do this without seeking the cooperation of the communities involved and the Nation next to us that we are dealing with primarily on this issue, we may have absolutely the opposite effect. In fact, there are implications of this decision. So at some point, in consultation with the managers of this bill, I may offer an amendment that would require some consultation with the U.S. communities involved, as well as with the Mexican Government, so that we are not unilaterally placing a fence here.

Believe me when I tell you this. I have spent a lot of time in this region, as my colleagues know. There will be political implications. There is a national election in Mexico in about 6 weeks, and I will guarantee this issue will be a major issue in that debate. And who wins those elections will have a huge implication in terms of how much cooperation we get on dealing with immigration policy. My colleague from Texas, Senator Cornyn, and I spent a weekend with our colleagues from Mexico about 4 months ago. To their credit, the Mexican Congress, along with all five Presidential candidates, adopted unanimously in their legislation provisions regarding immigration policies. At the very top of those lists were border security issues.

That had never happened before, Mr. President. It was a major change in how Mexico is looking at immigration policy.

My hope is, as we talk about matters we think are important for securing our borders, we will do so in consultation with our neighbors. I am not suggesting we give them veto power, but if you are going to put up a fence of some 3 to 1,000 miles long, first of all, there is a question of whether that will work, but I guarantee you it will not work if we don't have the cooperation of the very government we are seeking cooperation from, if we impose this fence without dealing with them, talking with them, asking their advice, working with them. That is true among neighbors in communities as well as nations that are neighbors.

So my hope is we can draft some language that would be endorsed and supported unanimously. It would certainly then cause me to have a very different attitude about the vote yesterday. But I caution my colleagues. I know the frustration levels. I understand the frustration of the communities along these border areas, but we are not going to succeed with this policy if we don't have a neighbor to the south that is going to work with us.

So while it is frustrating, and certainly Mexico has not been as cooperative as they should have been over the years, I think that has changed and we ought to encourage that change rather than take a step backwards. So again, at an appropriate time, we could try to craft some language that would at least encourage the kind of cooperation we are going to have to have if we are going to succeed with the kind of border security issues that are included in the bill.

I thank the chairman of the committee for giving me a few minutes to explain my concerns.

Mr. President, if my colleague would yield, we have an amendment that I think has been agreed to, and I am prepared to take 5 or 10 minutes tonight and get through it. I will leave it up to the leaders how they want to handle it.

Mr. President, let me express my gratitude to my colleague from Indiana, Senator Lugar, and his colleague from Indiana, Congressman Pence, and his colleague, Congressman Boucher of Virginia, who are drafting similar legislation and propose similar legislation in the other body and, of course, Senator Specter, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, my colleague from New York, Senator Schumer, and the Presiding Officer for their work on pulling together this bill which is a very sound proposal. As the Senator from Pennsylvania has explained, it deals with an issue that many were concerned about, and that is the national security question.

The point I would like to make is that while this is about journalists and the collection of information and revealing stories that might otherwise not be told, the real winners of this proposal are not journalists or news media outlets, television stations, or the like. The real winners are the people we represent, our constituents, and the consumers of information. This is most important for them. It is really not that significant. If it were only about journalists, frankly, we might have second questions about it.

Jefferson, of course, said it better than anyone many years ago when he said if he had to choose between a free country and a free press, he would select the latter. Madison, on the same

subject, talking about freedom of information, freedom of the press, had this quote:

Popular government without popular information or the means

of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce, or tragedy, or

perhaps both.

Today, that fundamental principle--that a well-informed citizenry is the cornerstone of self-government--is at risk in a manner in which it has not been at risk previously.

In the past year alone, some two dozen reporters have been subpoenaed or questioned about their confidential sources. Most of theme face fines or prison time. Seven have already been held in contempt. One has been jailed. Another was found guilty of criminal contempt for refusing to reveal a confidential source and served 6 months under house arrest. Why? Because they received information from confidential sources and pledged to protect the confidentiality of those sources. In other words, they have committed the ``offense'' of being journalists.

These actions by our Government against journalists are having a profound impact on news gathering. For example, in testimony last summer before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Norman Pearlstine, the editor in chief of Time, Inc., said this about the fallout from the Justice Department's efforts to obtain confidential information from a Time reporter:

Valuable sources have insisted that they no longer trusted

the magazine and that they would no longer cooperate on

stories. The chilling effect is obvious.

Confidential evidence may be just the tip of the iceberg. We have no way of knowing for certain the number of journalists who have been ordered or requested to reveal confidential sources. We can only speculate as to how many editors and publishers put the brakes on a story for fear that it could land one of their reporters in a spider web spun by the Federal prosecutors that could include prison. If citizens with knowledge of wrongdoing could not or would not come forward to share what they know in confidence with members of the press, serious journalism would cease to exist, in my view. Serious wrongs would remain unexposed. The scandals known as Watergate, the Enron failure, the Abu Ghraib prison photos--none of these would have been known to the public but for good journalists doing their work.

That scenario is no longer purely hypothetical. It is, in some respects, already a reality. When journalists are hauled into court by prosecutors and threatened with fines and imprisonment if they don't divulge the sources of their information, we are entering a dangerous territory for a democracy. That is when not only journalists, but ordinary citizens, will fear prosecution simply for exposing wrongdoing. When that happens, the information our citizens need to remain sovereign will be degraded, making it more and more difficult to hold accountable those in power. When the public's right to know is threatened, then I suggest to you that all of the liberties we hold dear are threatened, as well.

Again, I thank Senator Specter for working out this compromise, and I emphasize that the issue of national security, which was a very legitimate concern, has been handled by this proposal. The underlying issue is the right of citizens to have access to important information that might otherwise never become available were it not for the ability to have confidential sources share that information and the ability of these journalists to protect the confidentiality of those sources. Thirty-nine States have provisions dealing with the shield law. I think 10 States have regulations regarding the same matter.

I think it is long overdue that the Federal Government have a similar piece of legislation to protect the kind of information we seek. I commend my colleagues for their efforts in this regard. I am happy to join them.