Floor Statements

I believe I do for an amendment.

Madam President, I believe I have 13 minutes; is that correct?

Madam President, yesterday I spoke on an amendment we offered. It is cosponsored by the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, as well as Senators Lautenberg, Hutchison, Boxer, Schumer, Clinton, Obama, Menendez, Kerry, Coburn, and Casey. Essentially, what this amendment does is provide that more funds will go to States and localities based on risk, threat, and vulnerability.

As you know, Madam President, the 9/11 Commission in their 25th recommendation said, ``Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risk and

vulnerabilities.'' ``And Federal homeland security assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing.''

In current law, 40 percent of the money goes to a guaranteed minimum allocation--in other words, revenue sharing--and 60 percent is allocated based only on risk and effectiveness. The Lieberman-Collins bill--and I thank them--changes that. Twenty-four percent of the money goes to satisfy this minimum revenue-sharing requirement, and 76 percent is allocated on risk and effectiveness. That is a major step forward. There is no question about that. However, Senator Cornyn and I and our cosponsors believe that in this day and age, we have to give more money to risk, vulnerability, and threat. Therefore, the formula we present in this amendment will give 87.5 percent of the dollars based on risk and effectiveness, regardless of where that risk and effectiveness is, and 13 percent will go to satisfy guaranteed minimum allocation.

The second point I wish to make is that 35 States would benefit under this amendment: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

I believe this is the right way to allocate homeland security dollars.

Do you have the risk? Is there a threat? The President, in his State of the Union Message, mentioned how a threat and a terrorist plot against the tallest building on the west coast was eradicated. That tallest building on the west coast is shown in this picture. It happens to be the Library Tower building in Los Angeles--now under a new name, but nonetheless ``Library Tower'' is its historic name. This is the largest tower on the west coast. There was reportedly a second strike by al-Qaida devoted to the west coast. So it seems to me that if there is this kind of a threat, the money should go where the threat is.

States such as New York, California, and Texas have vast infrastructures. Terrorists go where the hit is going to be greatest, where the infrastructure is--big ports, big petroleum reserves, big buildings, big congregations of people--and where they can do the most psychological damage.

So we feel very strongly that this money should have an even stronger formula that puts money where the risk and threat actually are.

I do wish to correct one thing. Someone on the floor, and I don't know who, but somebody said Washington, DC, would receive less money under this amendment. We do not alter the risk-based distribution of the Urban Area Security Initiative Funds--which are called, in the vernacular of Washington, UASIF--and that comprises the lion's share of homeland security preparedness received in our Capital. Washington received nearly $50 million in UASIF funds last year alone. So we do not believe Washington would be negatively affected.

I know Senator Lautenberg wishes to come to the Chamber to speak. May I inquire how many minutes of the 13 I have remaining?

Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor. I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I believe I have 6 minutes, and I would like to use 2 of them.

I very much disagree with the figures of the distinguished Senator from Vermont. We wrote to the Congressional Research Service and asked them to compute the grant numbers. They gave us back a document, dated February 27, that relates to the two programs funded in this bill. One of them is the State Homeland Security Grant Program and the other is the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, and these are the numbers that CRS presents. Actually, Vermont, according to CRS, benefits $72,250, according to the Congressional Research Service, as do 35 States. I didn't make up these numbers.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the memorandum from the Congressional Research Service, which is a straight mathematical computation.

As I say, I understand there is a basic conflict here between small States and big States. There is a basic conflict between those who think the money should be spread around and those who believe this money should be used based on risk, vulnerability, and threat. I am in the latter. If the big threat is in Vermont, I am all for the money going to Vermont. I have no problem with that.

I look at the intelligence and I see the threats as they come in and I think the agencies that make the decisions should send the money based on their analysis of the intelligence and the threats.

I do wish to at least give my source, which is the Congressional Research Service, for these numbers which show 35 States as beneficiaries.

I know Senator Lautenberg should be here momentarily. I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the point of this amendment is to produce a bill that, as nearly as possible, mirrors the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Those recommendations were clear and distinct. Money should go to communities based on risk, threat, and vulnerability. This should not be a revenue-sharing program. Yes, the big States have more infrastructure, more highrises, more tunnels, more subways--the kinds of things that are attractive to terrorists. If that is in fact the case, as judged not by us but by the experts, then that money should be able to go where there is risk, threat, and vulnerability.

That is all this amendment does. We did not pull our figures out of the clear blue that concluded that 35 States are benefitted. These are the products of the Congressional Research Service analysis. We sent them the facts, and what they say is, assuming a $913 million authorization for the State Homeland Security Grant Program and the Law Enforcement Terrorist Program, this would be the result.

You cannot say whether someone is going to get a grant, but these are their nearest computations of who would benefit on that list. Yes, some States do lose; there is no question.

Please vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

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

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 335, please.

I thank the Chair.

(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of Amendments.'')

Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment which ensures that critical homeland security resources are allocated predominantly on the basis of risk, threat, and vulnerability. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Texas, Senator John Cornyn, as well as Senators Lautenberg, Hutchison, Boxer, Schumer, Clinton, Obama, Menendez, Kerry, Coburn, and Casey. I understand that Senator Coburn and at least three of the other cosponsors will be coming to the floor, and I certainly welcome them. Our amendment provides an alternative that is consistent with the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Let me refresh the Members' view of the 9/11 Commission. This is the recommendation:

Homeland security assistance should be based strictly--

Strictly is underlined--

on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.

And:

Federal homeland security assistance should not remain a

program for general revenue sharing.

Now, I know that is difficult for smaller States, but I also know this is a bill that is aimed to comply with the recommendations of this Commission. So I hope it will be given some attention.

The amendment we are offering today would allocate homeland security grant funds based on risk and threat analysis. This covers most grants for interoperable communications, seaport and airport security, as well as the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Law Enforcement Terrorist Prevention Program, the Urban Area Security Initiative, and the Citizen Corps Program. We accomplish this by reducing the State minimum formula. Currently, each State receives .75 percent of the State terrorism preparedness grant money appropriated to the Department of Homeland Security. Now, what does this mean? This means that nearly 40 percent of the grant funds must be allocated regardless of risk analysis. This amendment will reduce that State minimum to .25 percent; in other words, from .75 to .25. Lowering this minimum ensures that only 12.5 percent of the grant funds are set aside for all States, regardless. Even if they have no threat, they can get that amount of money.

Also, 87.5 percent would be allocated based purely on risk and threat assessment. This would give the Department of Homeland Security the flexibility necessary to put money where it is most needed. This means that more dollars will go to the places that face serious threats and where dollars can do the most good and, as I say, it is consistent with the 9/11 Commission.

So what does that mean in real dollar terms? Last year roughly $912 million in grant funds were distributed to homeland security-related planning, equipment, training, and law enforcement support needs related to terrorism prevention. It broke down like this: Only 60 percent of the money, or $547 million, was allocated based on risk. Forty percent, or $365 million, went to satisfy the guaranteed minimum for all States--exactly what the 9/11 Commission said we should not do.

If the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment were in place, an additional $426 million would have been distributed strictly on risk, threat, and vulnerability. That would have brought the total to $791 million-- nearly 90 percent of the funds. I believe this would have been the right thing to do. Instead, the places where the most funding is required are being shortchanged. Let me give my colleagues an example.

Last year the breakdown of funds distributed through the State Homeland Security Grant Program and the Law Enforcement Terrorist Prevention Program meant that some States with relatively low risk were receiving more funds per person than States with higher risk. We have all heard this. Now my State, California's share of this grant funding amounted to $2.50 per person. Texas, another large State, received $2.25 per person. Yet Wyoming received $14.75 per person. California is the most populous State in the Union. We have about 37 million residents. We have the Nation's largest ports, iconic bridges, towering skyscrapers, enormous infrastructure, and the busiest border crossing in the world. Texas, with 23.5 million residents, has great cities, towering skyscrapers, vital industries, and a vast international border. Wyoming--I don't want to pick on Wyoming. Love it. But as a State it is like a national park. Wyoming, with 515,000 residents, is a largely rural State.

As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I pay close attention to the classified intelligence on terrorist threats. Regrettably, for those living in States with higher threat profiles, there is reason for concern. Major cities such as Los Angeles have been an elusive al-Qaida target for years. A public example outlining the severity of this post- 9/11 threat was acknowledged by President Bush in his State of the Union Address earlier this year. The President said:

We stopped an al-Qaida plot to fly a hijacked airplane into

the tallest building on the West Coast.

This is the tallest building on the west coast. It is the Library Tower Building--it has a new name now--the old Library Tower Building in Los Angeles, the tallest office building west of the Mississippi. It is home to more than 3,000 people during a typical workday.

Al-Qaida and its allies do not attack based on an obscure formula to spend money evenly. They attack by prominence, number of people they can kill, and the psychological value of taking out America's great landmarks. Homeland security money must correlate with this threat and risk; otherwise, it is quite simply wasted. This is the reality of the world in which we live. We can never predict when or where the next major attack may occur, but we can apply tough-minded discipline to use our finite financial resources effectively.

Allocating our critical resources effectively is built on a three- pronged approach: One, risks of potential terrorist attacks must be accurately assessed; two, the vulnerability of critical infrastructure and potential targets must be measured; and, three, resources must be distributed based on these assessments.

The Department of Homeland Security was created to accomplish these goals. This amendment provides the flexibility and resources for the professionals to do so.

Let me make no secret. I would prefer to allocate 100 percent of homeland security grants based on risk and threat and believe that eliminating mandatory outlays to States is good public policy. It is safe public policy. But I understand the realities of the Senate. So this amendment is a compromise which makes us all safer and benefits in some way all 50 States.

There are some who say that small States would be put at a disadvantage by this amendment. This is simply not true. Thirty-five States--70 percent of the Nation--would actually receive increased grant money for terrorism preparedness under this amendment. States as diverse as Connecticut, South Carolina, and Colorado will benefit. Risk-based funding will bring more Federal dollars to smaller States with high-threat profiles.

Here are 35 States that benefit from risk-based appropriations, and you can see them on the chart. They are in the green: California, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Iowa, Missouri, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland.

This bill does not impact the primary all-hazards grant programs, such as the emergency management performance grants and the Assistance to Firefighters Program. In fact, under current law, nearly 40 percent of these funds are set aside for small State all-hazards preparedness. This adds up to at least $7 million per State based upon the authorization for emergency management performance grants in the underlying bill.

There are those who will also make the argument that recipients of homeland security grant funds are not held accountable, as money is often wasted. Our amendment increases the efficiency of Federal dollars by ensuring that these critical funds actually go toward programs and efforts that prevent

acts of terror. It requires entities receiving these funds to undergo periodic audits conducted by the Department, and it mandates that the appropriate performance standards are met.

Finally, the amendment ensures that States quickly distribute Federal dollars to localities where they are needed and not hold them back. Four years ago, the President signed Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8, requiring the Department of Homeland Security to allocate grant money ``based on national priorities.'' Four years later, despite this Presidential directive, this remains unmet, an elusive target.

The 9/11 Commission report makes clear that there are imbalances. It offers sensible advice. We should take that advice. In our amendment, we have tried to do that. Among the Commission's observations and conclusions, ``Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on assessment of risk and vulnerability and, finally, Congress should not use this money as pork barrel.'' I could not agree more. In a free-for- all over money, it is understandable that Representatives will work to protect the interests of their home States or districts. But this issue is too important, they say, for ``politics as usual'' to prevail.

Well, I think the 9/11 Commission got it right. The national interests must trump geographical interests when it comes to national security. I thank Senators Lieberman and Collins for their dedication and leadership. I am encouraged that their approach has been modified. I clearly would like to modify it more. That is what this amendment is all about. They have acknowledged that funds should be allocated more along the lines of risk and threat.

Nevertheless, their proposal to set aside 25 percent of funds for all States, I believe, in the world we live in, with the intelligence that crosses my desk, indicates it is too high an amount.

This amendment offers a reasonable alternative that takes a significant step toward improving our Nation's homeland security. So I thank my cosponsors. I see that one is on the floor. I would like to yield, if I may, to the Senator from Texas, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Texas for her support on this. I think we are both alike in that we say wherever there is threat and risk and vulnerability, that is where the money should go. If it is the State of Texas, that is fine with me. If it is the State of California, that is fine. If it is New York, Florida, Connecticut or Maine--wherever the threat and risk is--that is where the money should go. It is clear to me that the big States have felt very aggrieved. Big States with big landmarks, big ports, big oil and petroleum reserves and that kind of thing, feel definitely that they don't get the money they need to provide the protection they need. To that end, on March 5, I received and Senator Cornyn received a letter signed by Governor Schwarzenegger of California, Governor Spitzer of New York, Governor Crist of Florida, and Governor Perry of Texas.

I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to voice my concern about the efforts to expand the Visa Waiver Program in the 9/11 commission report bill and to offer an amendment that will cap the unlimited expansion of this program.

I believe the bill as offered on the floor will make us less safe, not more safe with respect to this huge program called Visa Waiver.

The bill would allow the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State to expand the Visa Waiver Program without limits. My amendment would limit this discretion based on a 10 percent visa refusal rate or on the actual visa overstay rate.

The Visa Waiver Program provides an extraordinary exception to our immigration laws. It allows the citizens of 27 nations to visit this country by merely showing up on the day of departure with a passport from their home country. In 2004, the State Department reported that 15.6 million people came to this country as part of this program. I am told that in 2005, unofficially, the number was at least 15.5 million and in 2006, the number was at least 15.6 million.

We have no way of knowing how many left because we do not have an exit system.

The bill on the floor today changes the Visa Waiver Program in a number of key ways.

First, it adds some good security measures, such as the expedited reporting of lost and stolen travel documents; and the exchange of information on terrorist watchlist. It also authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to develop an electronic travel authorization program so that all persons entering the U.S. will have to apply for clearance to enter the U.S. in advance of their trip. And it requires the Department of Homeland Security to develop a system to track all the foreign visitors who leave the U.S. via our airports--but not our seaports or land ports. This has been an unmet goal, however, year after year.

I welcome and support the enhanced security measures included in the bill. They are long overdue.

Second--and here is the problem--the bill allows the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State to fundamentally change the way countries are admitted into the visa waiver program, and thus, who can come into the U.S. without getting a visa.

Under current law, a country is eligible for this program so long as the vast majority--at least 97 percent--of its nationals can get a visa when they apply for one. The percentage of people who are rejected when they apply for a visa is called the ``visa refusal rate'' and that percentage must be under 3 percent for a country to participate in the program.

The rationale is that if the overwhelming majority of visitors satisfy requirements for a U.S. visa when they apply, we should not waste our resources and the time of U.S. consular officers to evaluate every single visa application. The 3 percent rate means that 97 percent of these applicants will return to their home country for one reason or another. They have family and earn a satisfactory living.

But even with a 3 percent rejection rate, the Visa Waiver Program is a security problem.

Convicted terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui from France and ``shoe- bomber'' Richard Reid from Great Britain both boarded flights to the United States with passports issued by Visa Waiver Program countries.

On August 10 of this past year, British police charged 17 suspects with a terrorist plot to detonate liquid explosives carried on board several airliners traveling from the United Kingdom to the United States. The key suspects were reported to be British-born Muslims, eligible to travel to the U.S. with just a passport in hand.

For that reason, I believe that the current Visa Waiver Program is the soft underbelly of our national security.

But this bill undermines even the scant protection afforded by our current laws in that it allows the administration to admit new countries into the program with complete disregard for how many people were previously rejected when they applied for a U.S. visa. My amendment would provide a meaningful limit to that discretion.

This bill does not affect just a handful of countries. It would affect any

and every country whose nationals travel to the United States.

As a matter of fact, the ``roadmap'' countries--or countries that the administration is currently talking to about inclusion in the Visa Waiver Program--total 19. So the Departments of State and Homeland Security are actively talking with 19 countries for acceptance into this Program.

A significant number of these 19 countries have visa rejection rates that are well above 3 percent. They are marked with an asterisk, and total 13 of the 19. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a chart showing by country the rejection rates.

Mr. President, today, 544 million people are eligible to travel into the U.S. without a visa as part of the Visa Waiver Program. If we add these ``roadmap'' countries to the program, we will add 162 million more people who can travel into the United States without a visa--a 30 percent increase.

And if these 19 additional ``roadmap'' countries can come into the program, what is to preclude any other country from coming into the program? How do we say ``no'' to India, also a good ally, when its refusal rate--19.5 percent--is lower than 4 of the roadmap--countries? The rejection rate for China--24.5 percent--is lower than those coming from Romania. Indonesia, at 35.1 percent just exceeds Romania. So this bill will likely set up some real conflicts and create additional problems.

The administration has argued that the expansion of the visa waiver countries should be limited to our allies. But what does it mean to be an ally? According to this administration, when we invaded Iraq we counted Colombia with a 33.3 percent visa rejection rate, and Nicaragua, with a 48 percent rejection rate among our allies because they had provided some assistance in war.

Do we, in Congress, really want to give the administration unfettered flexibility to allow nationals from any country to travel to the U.S. without a visa, simply because their governments have cooperated with ours?

Does that mean that those nationals should be allowed to come to the United States with no advance screening?

We can only assume that we will also significantly increase the number of people who will not leave the United States after their visa expires. In this manner, this bill, if enacted into law, will likely add many thousands, if not millions, to the undocumented or illegal population.

Remember, today, 30 to 40 percent of the illegal population are, in fact, visa overstays--people who come with temporary or visitor visas and do not return to their countries.

I believe we should not expand this program without a good hard look at how it will compromise our national security, law enforcement, and immigration goals and without ensuring that safety measures are in place to make the program strong.

First, whenever the United States adds new countries to the program, it increases the demand for, and the availability of, fraudulent travel documents.

The value of lost, stolen or fraudulent Visa Waiver Program documents is enormous. A person carrying a visa waiver country passport has virtually unlimited access into and out of the United States.

No doubt, the expansion of the program will increase the use of fraudulent border documents which are sold on the black market in the tens of thousands: passports, international driver's licenses, and other forms of identification from new visa waiver countries will flood the market.

According to the July 2006 GAO report on improving the security of the Visa Waiver Program, visa waiver travel documents have been used by criminals and terrorists seeking to disguise their true identity.

In 2004, more than 15 million people from 27 countries traveled in and out of the United States with no visa.

And from January through June 2005--a 6-month period--the Department of Homeland Security reported that it confiscated 298 fraudulent or altered passports issued by Visa Waiver Program countries that travelers were attempting to use to enter the United States. And these are just the ones who got caught.

In fact, Interpol reports that they have records of more than 12 million stolen and lost travel documents in their database, but that there are 30 to 40 million travel documents have been stolen worldwide.

We can extrapolate that tens of thousands of those documents are from visa waiver countries.

As the 9/11 Commission report demonstrates, individuals with fraudulent documents pose a far greater threat to our national security than those traveling with no documents at all.

For that reason, Senator Sessions and I have introduced a bill this Congress to crack down on people who traffic in lost and stolen travel documents.

The second problem is that some countries have very weak policies on who can become a citizen--and therefore legally obtain travel documents. Not every country has the same strict controls on who can become a citizen as the U.S. does.

For example, Romania, one of the ``road map'' countries, extends citizenship to many citizens of Ukraine or Moldova as a matter of course without prior residency requirements. Ukraine and Moldova are not slated to participate in the visa waiver program, and in fact, have visa rejection rates of 38.7 percent and 34.2 percent, respectively. Adding Romania is like adding Ukraine and Moldova. How would their inclusion impact national security?

Finally, this bill does not go far enough to protect U.S. borders.

The bill requires the development of an air exit system, but it does nothing to track who comes and goes by way of our land and sea ports.

It also requires the Department of Homeland Security to track how many people overstay their visas, but it does not require them to use this information to determine who can participate in the program.

For example, even if we learn that one out of four Lithuanian visitors never returns to Lithuania when their visa expires, Lithuania could still participate in the Visa Waiver Program.

Again, experts estimate that between 30 percent and 40 percent of those undocumented people living in the U.S. today are here because they ignored the time limits on their visa and just never went back home.

At a time when this country is torn about how to handle the 12 million undocumented people currently living here, we must consider who plays by the rules when we talk about who participates in the program.

If a high number of travelers from countries overstay their visas, then those countries should not be allowed the benefit of permitting their nationals to enter the U.S. without a background check and a consular interview.

The amendment I am proposing today offers a way to limit the expansion of the Visa Waiver Program in light of our immigration and national security concerns.

The amendment I am offering would increase the visa rejection rate under the current law from 3 percent to 10 percent for countries that agree to these enhanced security measures.

The result is that countries such as South Korea, 3.6 percent, Taiwan, 3.1 percent, Estonia, 7.1 percent, and the Czech Republic, 9.4 percent could be eligible to participate in the program provided they pass the security requirements this bill imposes.

Then, once the U.S. has statistics on which foreign nationals regularly overstay their visa, the government should use those statistics to decide who can participate in the program.

My amendment would require the Departments of Homeland Security and State, in consultation and with the approval of Congress, to set a meaningful

overstay rate once they have that data. Then countries with a proven track record--those with nationals who go home when they are supposed to go home--could be eligible for the program.

The answer is not to entirely remove the visa rejection rate, 3 percent, as this bill does with no suitable replacement, but to enact a fair system across the board that recognizes that the screening of those who wish to come to our country is important, both for the security of the country, as well as to ensure that visitors do what their ``visa waiver'' provides--and that is to return to their country of origin at the end of the 90-day period.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 269.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. The amendment I am seeking to bring up is a bill that has been reported out of the Judiciary Committee, and essentially what it would do is ensure the confirmation of all U.S. attorneys by the Senate.

What happened was that in 2006, an amendment went into the PATRIOT

Act that allowed the administration to appoint an interim U.S. attorney indefinitely without confirmation. In the early part of this year, I believe it was on January 6, I learned that six U.S. attorneys had been called and summarily told they were to resign effective a specific date in January. I was told by the person who gave me the information that there was something suspicious about that. I didn't know, so I began to look into it.

Well, I received a new story today about one of those U.S. attorneys, and if I might, I will read it to this body. It is an article by Marisa Taylor of the McClatchy Newspapers:

The U.S. Attorney from New Mexico who was recently fired by

the Bush administration said Wednesday that he believes he

was forced out because he refused to rush an indictment in an

ongoing probe of local Democrats a month before November's

congressional elections.

David Iglesias said two Members of Congress separately

called in mid October to inquire about the timing of an

ongoing probe of a kickback scheme and appeared eager for an

indictment to be issued on the eve of the elections in order

to benefit the Republicans. He refused to name the Members of

Congress because he said he feared retaliation.

Two months later, on December 7, Iglesias became one of six

U.S. Attorneys ordered to step down for what administration

officials have termed ``performance-related issues.'' Two

other U.S. Attorneys also have been asked to resign.

Iglesias, who received a positive performance review before

he was fired, said he suspected he was forced out because of

his refusal to be pressured to hand down an indictment on the

ongoing probe:

I believe that because I didn't play ball, so to speak, I

was asked to resign, said Iglesias, who officially stepped

down on Wednesday.

Iglesias acknowledged that he had no proof that the

pressure from the congressional members prompted his forced

resignation, but he said the contact in and of itself

violated one of the most important tenets of a U.S.

Attorney's Office: Don't mix politics with prosecutions. The

article goes on.

Now this is only one element of this story. The matter has been the subject of a hearing in the Judiciary Committee. Legislation is ready to come before the floor. I have introduced it as an amendment. We approved it in the Judiciary Committee with a bipartisan vote. I think the time has come to do two things. One would be for the Judiciary Committee--and I hope it will, and I believe the chairman of the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and The Courts, Senator Schumer, is interested in doing this--to issue subpoenas to have these U.S. attorneys come before the Committee to answer questions about how their demanded resignations took place.

Generally, a U.S. attorney is appointed for a term of four years, but serves at the pleasure of the President. If he wants to fire them he can. However, U.S. attorneys have very complicated and very difficult cases and I believe they must have some level of independence. The FBI, as we have heard in our oversight hearings, has raised the level of public corruption in their investigations.

So if the FBI investigates a case and comes up with the evidence, a U.S. attorney is obviously bound to prosecute that case. How this affects David Iglesias, I don't know. But the fact that these people all had very good performance reviews causes me a great concern. I wish to read from those performance reviews.

The performance review for John McKay of the Western District of Washington says:

``McKay is an effective, well-regarded and capable leader

of the [U.S. attorney's office] and the District's law

enforcement community,'' according to the team of 27 Justice

Department officials.

David Iglesias, about whom I read the news story, of the District of New Mexico, got this performance review:

The [U.S. Attorney] had a highly effective firearms

violence initiative and active and effective program to

address drug trafficking.

Daniel Bogden, District of Nevada:

United States Attorney Bogden was highly regarded by the

federal judiciary, the law enforcement and civil client

agencies, and the staff of the United States Attorney's

Office. He was a capable leader of the [office].

Bud Cummins, who many of us know, in the Eastern District of Arkansas:

The U.S. Attorney had an active, well managed anti-

terrorism program . . . The Project Safe Neighborhoods

initiatives were being effectively implemented and

successfully managed.

Carol Lam, Southern District of California, including San Diego, whom I am very familiar with:

Carol Lam was an effective manager and respected leader in

the District . . . Appropriate management procedures and

practices were in place to ensure a quality written work

product.

These are some of the snippets from the reviews. But clearly, the performance of these U.S. attorneys was not a reason to fire them.

I truly believe what the Department of Justice intended to do was what they did in the Eastern District of Arkansas--bring in bright, young Republican political operatives to assume these roles to give them a leg up and fire or require the resignation of these U.S. attorneys.

When I began to inquire into it, I asked whether interviews for replacements were taking place within these offices, particularly in San Diego. At that time, no one in the office was being interviewed as a replacement. Since these hearings have begun, individuals within the office have been interviewed. In fact, one has been appointed to fill in for former U.S. Attorney Carol Lam.

I truly believe there was an effort to use this section of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization to bring political operatives into these offices, and I think it is a matter of urgency for us to pass the legislation that was marked up by the Judiciary Committee. Absent that, there is no recourse, other than to issue subpoenas, to have these former U.S. attorneys come before the committee and be able to ask them some hard questions.

I think when a U.S. attorney who has served, and served well, is summarily dismissed for no real reason, it is a problem. We all know the U.S. attorney in San Diego brought the prosecution of a Member of the House of Representatives who is serving consequential time for major felonies and had subpoenas outstanding for other Members of the House and was summarily told in December that she should resign--in this case--by the end of January. That is not right.

So the only way I know to right the wrong is to restore the law to where it was before the PATRIOT Act reauthorization. That law is this amendment and the amendment is very simple. It simply says that the Attorney General may appoint an interim U.S. attorney to a vacancy for 120 days. After 120 days, if a nominee has not been confirmed by the Senate, the district court in the district where the vacancy exists can make an appointment. This provides the incentive for the administration to move a nominee. I should say there are 13 vacancies, of which only 3 nominees have presently been sent to the Senate. If you combine those 13 vacancies with the seven new vacancies, then over 20 percent of the U.S. attorney positions could be filled without Senate confirmation if we assume the intent was not to send a nominee to the Senate. Of course, the administration will decry this and say that is not the case. Nonetheless, there were 13 vacancies and now seven new vacancies with only 3 nominees before the Judiciary Committee for review and for approval by the full Senate.

If the law is left as it is, any Attorney General or President could essentially appoint every single U.S. attorney as an interim U.S. attorney, not subject to confirmation. If you consider the work of the U.S. attorneys--the public corruption, the major narcotics cases, the immigration cases, the complicated Federal law they carry out--I think every Member of this body would believe that confirmation by the Senate for every U.S. attorney should be assured. This amendment will carry that forward.

I was shocked to read about David Iglesias. I don't know whether it is accurate. I know it appeared in the news. Based on that, he has said he believes he was forced out for a political reason. There is only one way to find out, and that is for the Judiciary Committee to issue subpoenas, have these U.S. attorneys come before us, and ask a number of hard questions.

I am hopeful this body will see fit to pass this amendment. It is simple, short, direct, and it solves the problem.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Boxer as a co-sponsor of the ``Pell Grant Equity Act of 2007'' that would provide all low-income students with the same opportunity to receive a Federal Pell Grant by eliminating the current tuition sensitivity provision in the Pell Grant Program.

Federal Pell Grants are the cornerstone of our need-based financial aid system ensuring that all students have access to higher education.

However, the Pell Grant program's eligibility formula penalizes low- income students who attend very low-cost colleges by reducing the amount of the Pell Grant they can receive.

The formula bases eligibility for Pell Grant awards on the amount of tuition charged by the college and provides a lower ``alternate'' amount for low tuition colleges, known as the ``tuition sensitivity'' provision.

Community college students are significantly impacted by the tuition sensitivity provision because of low student tuition fees.

In California, due to a drop in tuition fees from $26 per unit to $20 unit, community college students enrolling this spring will otherwise be penalized with a $56 reduction in their 2007 Pell Grants and will endure another $112 hit in the 2007-2008 academic year if the tuition sensitivity provision is not eliminated.

Community college students represent approximately 46 percent of higher education students in California

receiving Pell Grants and are the only ones negatively impacted by this provision.

Any reduction of these vital grants to our lowest income students would have a major impact in their ability to afford college and continue their education, and we cannot allow this to happen.

This bill would ensure that our nation's community college students are not unduly penalized for receiving an affordable education at a low-cost college.

We must continue to do all we can to make a college education more accessible and affordable for all of our Nation's students.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Boxer and I in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Boxer as a co-sponsor of the ``Pell Grant Equity Act of 2007'' that would provide all low-income students with the same opportunity to receive a Federal Pell Grant by eliminating the current tuition sensitivity provision in the Pell Grant Program.

Federal Pell Grants are the cornerstone of our need-based financial aid system ensuring that all students have access to higher education.

However, the Pell Grant program's eligibility formula penalizes low- income students who attend very low-cost colleges by reducing the amount of the Pell Grant they can receive.

The formula bases eligibility for Pell Grant awards on the amount of tuition charged by the college and provides a lower ``alternate'' amount for low tuition colleges, known as the ``tuition sensitivity'' provision.

Community college students are significantly impacted by the tuition sensitivity provision because of low student tuition fees.

In California, due to a drop in tuition fees from $26 per unit to $20 unit, community college students enrolling this spring will otherwise be penalized with a $56 reduction in their 2007 Pell Grants and will endure another $112 hit in the 2007-2008 academic year if the tuition sensitivity provision is not eliminated.

Community college students represent approximately 46 percent of higher education students in California

receiving Pell Grants and are the only ones negatively impacted by this provision.

Any reduction of these vital grants to our lowest income students would have a major impact in their ability to afford college and continue their education, and we cannot allow this to happen.

This bill would ensure that our nation's community college students are not unduly penalized for receiving an affordable education at a low-cost college.

We must continue to do all we can to make a college education more accessible and affordable for all of our Nation's students.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Boxer and I in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, February 28, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a markup of the Omnibus Budget for Senate Committees.

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Howard Gantman at the Rules and Administration Committee on 224-6352.

Yesterday, the House of Representatives clearly expressed its support for our troops and its disapproval of the President's action to escalate the war. Today, it is the Senate's turn.

Today, I believe that by voting for cloture, a majority of the Senate will convey the same message. There may not be 60 votes, but I believe there will be a majority. Our forces have been in Iraq for 4 years, $380 billion has been spent, more than 3,000 troops have been killed, and nearly 24,000 have been wounded. My home State of California has lost more than 300 brave men and women, with thousands injured.

Iraq is in chaos: Sunni fighting Shia, Shia fighting Sunni, car bombs, IEDs, assassinations, mortar attacks, downed helicopters, death squads, and sabotaged infrastructure. Every day, we learn of new attacks, new casualties, new bloodshed, and no end in sight.

I believe this surge is a mistake. Four years ago, U.S. Armed Forces went to Iraq to be liberators. Today, they are caught in the bloody crossfire of internecine fighting. The question is, Can the American military solve a civil war? I don't believe it can. It was certainly not the mission Congress authorized in 2002. So the time has come for the Senate to say so, just as the House has done. The time has come to declare that our time has come and gone in Iraq. The time has come to speak clearly, and the time has come to change course.

The authorization for use of military force, approved by the Congress in October 2002, carries with it congressional approval of this war. The way to change course is to change that authorization. Therefore, today, I introduce legislation that will put the expiration date of December 31, 2007, on the authorization for use of military force.

The President would be required to return to Congress if he seeks to renew the resolution. The resolution recognizes that conditions have changed since the 2002 authorization was approved. Saddam Hussein is gone. An Iraqi Government has been established. It also recognizes the flaws of the 2002 authorization. Iraq, in fact, had no weapons of mass destruction. It was not closely allied with al-Qaida.

This resolution does not call for a precipitous withdrawal--let me stress that--but it sets a time limit--the remaining 10 months of the year--to stage an orderly redeployment and to transition this mission. That mission would be limited to training, equipping, and advising Iraqi security and police forces; to force protection and security for U.S. Armed Forces and civilian personnel; support of Iraqi security forces for border security and protection, to be carried out with the minimum forces required for that purpose; targeted counterterrorism operations against al-Qaida and foreign fighters within Iraq; and logistical support in connection with these activities.

I believe this legislation is the next logical step following today. It is simple, it is concise. After the majority vote today sends our disapproval to the President, it is time to consider the next step. I submit this resolution as a possible next step.

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

Yesterday, the House of Representatives clearly expressed its support for our troops and its disapproval of the President's action to escalate the war. Today, it is the Senate's turn.

Today, I believe that by voting for cloture, a majority of the Senate will convey the same message. There may not be 60 votes, but I believe there will be a majority. Our forces have been in Iraq for 4 years, $380 billion has been spent, more than 3,000 troops have been killed, and nearly 24,000 have been wounded. My home State of California has lost more than 300 brave men and women, with thousands injured.

Iraq is in chaos: Sunni fighting Shia, Shia fighting Sunni, car bombs, IEDs, assassinations, mortar attacks, downed helicopters, death squads, and sabotaged infrastructure. Every day, we learn of new attacks, new casualties, new bloodshed, and no end in sight.

I believe this surge is a mistake. Four years ago, U.S. Armed Forces went to Iraq to be liberators. Today, they are caught in the bloody crossfire of internecine fighting. The question is, Can the American military solve a civil war? I don't believe it can. It was certainly not the mission Congress authorized in 2002. So the time has come for the Senate to say so, just as the House has done. The time has come to declare that our time has come and gone in Iraq. The time has come to speak clearly, and the time has come to change course.

The authorization for use of military force, approved by the Congress in October 2002, carries with it congressional approval of this war. The way to change course is to change that authorization. Therefore, today, I introduce legislation that will put the expiration date of December 31, 2007, on the authorization for use of military force.

The President would be required to return to Congress if he seeks to renew the resolution. The resolution recognizes that conditions have changed since the 2002 authorization was approved. Saddam Hussein is gone. An Iraqi Government has been established. It also recognizes the flaws of the 2002 authorization. Iraq, in fact, had no weapons of mass destruction. It was not closely allied with al-Qaida.

This resolution does not call for a precipitous withdrawal--let me stress that--but it sets a time limit--the remaining 10 months of the year--to stage an orderly redeployment and to transition this mission. That mission would be limited to training, equipping, and advising Iraqi security and police forces; to force protection and security for U.S. Armed Forces and civilian personnel; support of Iraqi security forces for border security and protection, to be carried out with the minimum forces required for that purpose; targeted counterterrorism operations against al-Qaida and foreign fighters within Iraq; and logistical support in connection with these activities.

I believe this legislation is the next logical step following today. It is simple, it is concise. After the majority vote today sends our disapproval to the President, it is time to consider the next step. I submit this resolution as a possible next step.

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

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for holding the hearing in his subcommittee, for his leadership, for understanding what is at stake, and for being willing to be out in front on doing something about it.

What I want to do for the American public is lay out the history of this particular issue and place it in context.

Unbeknownst to any of us, in March 2006, in the PATRIOT Act reauthorization, a provision was included that allows the Attorney General to appoint an interim U.S. attorney for an indefinite period of time. You might ask, what is wrong with that? What is wrong is that it avoids Senate confirmation. Prior to this change, the law stated that the Attorney General could appoint interim U.S. attorneys but only for 120 days. After that time, the authority to appoint an interim U.S. attorney would fall to the district court. Why? Because that provided an incentive to the administration to present a U.S. attorney nominee to the Senate for hearing, for questions, for review, and for a vote on confirmation.

This structure created in 2006 was relatively new. It was enacted during the Reagan administration in a broader bill by Strom Thurmond that was described as a technical corrections bill on criminal procedures. Before that, from 1898 until the Thurmond bill was enacted, district courts held the sole authority to appoint interim U.S. attorneys. That existed for almost 100 years. It was critical then, as it is now, that all U.S. attorneys receive Senate confirmation. By having the district courts make that interim appointment, it assured that the confirmation would take place.

No one expected the rash of firings from the Department of Justice. I first learned about the Department's actions early in January. At that time I learned that main Justice in Washington had placed calls to at least seven, possibly more, U.S. attorneys and asked them to resign by a date specific in January. I was also told that the intention was to bring in outside lawyers from main Justice or from elsewhere to take over these posts and to serve without confirmation for the remainder of the Bush presidency.

The Department of Justice has now acknowledged in public and at a hearing that such calls were made to ``less than 10'' U.S. attorneys asking them to step aside. We also know that prior to this action, there were already 13 U.S. attorney vacancies pending, with only two nominations presented by the administration to the Judiciary Committee. This means that if you add the 7 to 10 U.S. attorneys who were asked to resign to the current 11 vacancies without nominees, there could be between 18 and 21 U.S. attorney positions throughout the country that the Attorney General could fill without securing Senate confirmation. That is over 20 percent of U.S. attorneys nationally that could be filled for the remaining 2 years of the Bush presidency without going through Senate confirmation.

This new provision slipped into the PATRIOT Act would also allow the next President to put in place all 93 U.S. attorneys and let them serve the entire 4-year term without the benefit of confirmation. This change was a mistake. I suspect the amendment to the PATRIOT Act came from the Justice Department, was quietly put in the bill, and none of us at the time were the wiser. And then suddenly, at a certain point, the Justice Department said: OK, let's begin to remove some of these people and give some of our own bright young people an opportunity to step up and become a U.S. attorney. This is wrong, and the Justice Department has backed away from it.

Let me talk about a few of the U.S. attorneys involved. According to press reports, at least three were given glowing reviews from their performance audits in the recent past. According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Daniel Bogden, the U.S. Attorney for Nevada, said Wednesday that he was stunned to hear the Department of Justice requested that he step down from his post because of performance reasons. He went on to say:

To this date, no one from the department has previously

identified any issues with my performance or the performance

of my office.

A similar story has surfaced about Washington U.S. Attorney John McKay. The Seattle Times reported last week:

Seven months before he was forced to resign as U.S.

attorney for the western district of Washington, John McKay

received a glowing performance review from Justice Department

evaluators.

The article went on to quote the report which stated:

``McKay is an effective, well-regarded and capable leader

of the [U.S. attorney's office]'' . . . according to the team

of 27 Justice Department officials.

Yet on December 7th, Michael Battle, director of the

Justice Department's executive office for U.S. attorneys,

called McKay and asked him to step down.

``I was told to resign by the end of January,'' McKay

confirmed . . . ``I asked what the reason was, and they told

me there was none.''

Then, of course, there is former-Arkansas U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins. In a story that ran last month, Mr. Cummins stated that the Director of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, Michael Battle, made it clear that although he was being asked to leave, ``it was not about me but about their desire to give someone else the opportunity to have the appointment.''

Mr. Cummins said he specifically asked if his job performance was a problem when he got the call:

[Mr. Battle] assured me it was exactly to the contrary.

These are three cases that have been documented where U.S. attorneys did not have any performance-related concerns as alleged by the Department. In addition, I have heard similar reports about other U.S. attorneys. I want to speak in specific about one. That is the U.S. Attorney from San Diego, CA. Today is U.S. Attorney Carol Lam's last day in office. I want to commend her. I thank her for the work she has done in that office. She was sworn in as U.S. attorney in September of 2002 and was appointed by the President in November 2002. Prior to serving as U.S. attorney, she was a judge of the Superior Court of San Diego, and she served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the southern district of California for 11 years. So she was no newcomer. She has been successful in bringing many of the country's most important corruption cases. I want to go through a few of them.

In March of 2004, Steven Mark Lash, the former chief financial officer of FPA Medical Management, was sentenced for his role in defrauding shareholders and lenders of FPA. The collapse of the company left more than 1,600 doctors being owed more than $60 million and patients reported being unable to obtain medical care because FPA had ceased paying providers. Thank you, Carol Lam.

In January 2005, Mark Anthony Kolowich, owner of World Express Rx, pled guilty to conspiracy to selling counterfeit pharmaceuticals, conspiracy to commit mail fraud and smuggle pharmaceuticals, and conspiracy to launder money. Mr. Kolowich had run an Internet pharmacy Web site where customers could order prescription drugs without a valid prescription. The judge called him the kingpin and architect of an elicit pharmaceutical ring that recruited many others to smuggle drugs across the United States-Mexico border at San Ysidro. Ms. Lam also announced that charges had been filed against five other individuals in a related case involving MyRxForLess.com. Thank you, Carol Lam.

In July 2005, Ms. Lam brought a case against San Diego councilman Ralph Inzunza, along with Las Vegas lobbyist Lance Malone, were convicted on multiple counts of extortion, wire fraud conspiracy, and wire fraud. They were accused of trading money for efforts to repeal a law.

In November 2005, Ms. Lam secured a guilty plea from former Representative Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham for taking more than $2 million in bribes in a criminal conspiracy case involving at least three defense contractors, after he accepted cash and gifts and then tried to influence the Defense Department on behalf of donors. He also pled guilty to a separate tax evasion violation for failing to disclose income in 2004. Thank you, Carol Lam.

In addition, earlier this week, Carol Lam announced two more indictments of Kyl ``Dusty'' Foggo, former top officer at the CIA, and Brent Wilkes, a defense contractor accused of bribing Duke Cunningham and the prime benefactor of the secret CIA contracts. Thank you, Carol Lam.

This woman was called and told to resign by a date specific, after she has done all of this good work. Ms. Lam and the San Diego U.S. Attorney's office have also pursued and successfully prosecuted other important cases, including:

In September 2005, the president of the San Diego chapter of Hell's Angels pled guilty to conspiracy to commit racketeering. Guy Russell Castiglione admitted that he conspired to kill members of a rival motorcycle gang, the Mongols, and to sell methamphetamine. Thank you, Carol Lam.

Then in December 2005, Daymond Buchanan, member of Hells Angels, was sentenced to 92 months in Federal prison for participating in a pattern of racketeering. He admitted in his guilty plea that he and other Hell's Angels also inflicted serious bodily injury upon one victim and that another Hell's Angel brandished a firearm during the offense.

At that time, Ms. Lam announced:

With the president, sergeant at arms, secretary, treasurer,

and six other members of the Hell's Angels convicted of

racketeering charges and facing long prison sentences, the

San Diego chapter of the Hell's Angels has been effectively

shut down for the foreseeable future.

Thank you, Carol Lam. And what does she get? Fired without cause.

In September, 2006, Jose Ernesto Beltran-Quinonez, a Mexican national, pleaded guilty to making false statements about weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Quinonez was sentenced to 3 years in Federal prison for making up a story about Chinese terrorists sneaking into the United States with a nuclear warhead. That hoax prompted a massive investigation, Federal warnings, discussions at one of President Bush's security briefings, and a nationwide hunt for the group of Chinese supposedly plotting the attack.

Thank you, Carol Lam.

In December 2006, Mel Kay, of Golden State Fence Company, and Michael McLaughlin, pleaded guilty to felony charges of hiring illegal immigrants and agreed to pay fines of $200,000 and $100,000, respectively. The company, which built more than a mile of the 15-foot- high fence near the Otay Mesa border crossing in San Diego, agreed separately to pay $5 million on a misdemeanor count, one of the largest fines ever imposed on a company for an immigration violation.

Thank you, Carol Lam.

These are just some of the important cases Carol Lam has pursued during her tenure. She does not deserve this kind of treatment.

In addition, during her previous time in the office, Ms. Lam prosecuted and convicted several high-ranking members of La Cosa Nostra, a Chicago-based organized crime family. She also secured a guilty plea and settlement of $110 million against National Health Laboratories, Inc., in a Medicare fraud case.

Ms. Lam has had a distinguished career and she served the Southern District of San Diego well, and everyone in that district knows that. I regret that main Justice does not. I am quite disappointed that main Justice chose to remove her, especially given the ongoing work in which the office is involved.

Now, like Senator Schumer, I was present yesterday when the Justice Department briefed us and several other Senators as to why they asked these U.S. attorneys to leave. With the record I just pointed out, nothing that was said yesterday justifies asking this U.S. attorney to leave without cause--nothing. That is why this is an issue. I believe their intent was to bring in people from the outside to give some of their bright young people an opportunity. This might not be wrong, if they weren't also attempting to avoid confirmation. Without confirmation, the Department of Justice could bring in political operatives or anybody else. That is wrong.

If I had not been given this information, we never would have known about these events because the likelihood is that these U.S. attorneys would have just quietly resigned and retired to another job or retired into society somewhere else. This is not the way we should function. That is why this is a major issue. That is why the Majority Leader of the Senate wishes to bring this bill to the floor--to put it back to where it was prior to that provision being put into the Patriot Act without our knowledge and without debate.

I hope the U.S. attorney bill will come to the floor of the Senate, and I hope we can change it back. I hope we can go out and say to the American people that this will never happen again and every U.S. attorney will have confirmation before the Senate of the United States.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that ensures our Nation's homeland security grant resources are allocated in the most effective manner possible. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Texas, Senator John Cornyn, as well as Senators Boxer, Hutchison, Lautenberg, Schumer, Clinton, Menendez, and Obama.

Simply put, the current system for allocating homeland security grants to States is fundamentally flawed. Proportionate funding is not allotted to regions which face the highest risk of a terrorist attack, and adequate assessment of threats is not calculated.

The ``Risk-Based Homeland Security Grants Act of 2007'' addresses these

concerns with a common-sense approach that responsibly directs taxpayer dollars to protect our Nation's vital interests.

The methodology is straightforward and spelled out in the language at the beginning of the bill:

The Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that

homeland security grants are allocated based on an assessment

of threat, vulnerability, and consequence to the maximum

extent practicable.

This direction would apply to the four major first-responder grant programs administered by the Department of Homeland Security: the State Homeland Security Grant Program; the Urban Area Security Initiative; the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program; and the Citizens Corps Program.

The primary objective of the legislation is accomplished by reducing the amount of funding that each State is guaranteed. Current practice requires a ``small state minimum,'' giving each State at least 0.75 percent of much of the grant funding.

The result is that roughly 38 percent of the funds are marked for distribution before any substantive risk analysis has been performed. That sends disproportionate money to low-risk, rural areas and territories.

For most, this outcome is not acceptable. Funding to bolster the security of our country should go to where the threat is greatest--such as seaports, airports, and national landmarks.

This bill lowers the ``small state minimum'' to 0.25 percent per State. A Homeland Security Grants Board, comprised of seven top Department of Homeland Security officials, including the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Undersecretary of Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, is established to rank grant applications based upon risk. Three factors guide this evaluation: threat, vulnerability, and consequence.

The current system, by contrast, allocates a significant amount of funding to states based upon their population.

To ensure that grant funds are properly accounted for, and utilized within an integrated framework to enhance domestic security, grants must be designed to meet ``essential'' capabilities.

``Essential capabilities'' refers to the ability of regions to address risks by reducing vulnerability to attacks and diminishing the consequences of such attacks by effective response.

This legislation assures that States must demonstrate that they have a detailed, prioritized plan for emergency preparedness and resource allocation, so that Federal funds are assigned to the most effective uses.

States must then quickly distribute the Federal funds to regions and localities.

The notion of risk-based allocation of homeland security grants is not novel. This is a bipartisan approach advocated by both the Bush Administration and the 9/11 Commission.

The 9/11 Commission report said: ``Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.''

Four years ago, President Bush signed Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8, which required the Department of Homeland Security to allocate grant funding ``based on national priorities.''

In April 2005, Representatives Cox and Turner, the Chair and Ranking Member of the House Homeland Security Committee at the time, offered similar legislation to reform the grant process by reducing State minimums and allocating funds based upon risk assessments.

That effort, the ``Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2005,'' passed the House of Representatives as part of the Intelligence Reform bill, but was dropped in conference. This bill is based on the House efforts, and closely tracks the previous bill.

Again, the House has acted, passing legislation last month, by an overwhelming vote of 299-128, to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Committee. A key component is the risk-based allocation of homeland security resources.

This bill, though updated to reflect recent changes at the Department of Homeland Security, marks the continuation of a legislation effort we began last session, with the FORWARD Funding Act. That bill was unsuccessful. Hopefully, this time will be different.

In the post-Cold War world, America needs the flexibility to defend against a different type of enemy. The amorphous nature of the threat and likelihood of asymmetric attacks demands a robust approach.

But our resources are limited, and difficult choices must be made.

We will never know exactly how, when or where the next major attack may occur. But we can refine our risk-assessment capabilities, and make objective analyses and predictions. It follows that our resources should be directed based upon our best estimate of where the next strike might take place.

Two guiding principles--the ability to predict future attacks, coupled with the necessity of utilizing finite resources effectively-- form the backbone of a comprehensive strategy to make our Nation more secure.

The approach is three-pronged: risks of potential terrorist attacks must be accurately assessed; the vulnerability of critical infrastructure and potential targets must be measured; and, resources should be dispersed based upon these assessments.

The Department of Homeland Security was created to accomplish these goals. Yet we find again and again that scarce resources are allocated based on factors unrelated to real security.

For example, last year California's Urban Area Security Initiative grants totaled only $6.81 per capita. Hawaii received $11.55 per capita, and Wyoming, $18.06 per capita.

I recognize the environment in which we are operating, and understand this bill is not a panacea. This bill is a first step towards reducing the threat of terrorist attacks.

Congress should not act alone. The Department of Homeland Security must embrace the concept of risk-based allocation of resources. And it must act on these principles. Slow progress has been made, but the Department's intelligence analysis and vulnerability assessment capabilities must be improved.

We can do better. We must put aside pork-barrel politics and take action to protect all Americans. The security of our Nation hangs in the balance and we cannot afford to wait until it is too late.

This bill was conceived and put forth in the spirit of bipartisanship. I hope that Senators Lieberman and Collins will accept this legislation, which is a reasoned alternative to their approach and a starting point for continued discussion.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this simple, straightforward approach to effectively distribute our Nation's resources and make America secure.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that ensures our Nation's homeland security grant resources are allocated in the most effective manner possible. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Texas, Senator John Cornyn, as well as Senators Boxer, Hutchison, Lautenberg, Schumer, Clinton, Menendez, and Obama.

Simply put, the current system for allocating homeland security grants to States is fundamentally flawed. Proportionate funding is not allotted to regions which face the highest risk of a terrorist attack, and adequate assessment of threats is not calculated.

The ``Risk-Based Homeland Security Grants Act of 2007'' addresses these

concerns with a common-sense approach that responsibly directs taxpayer dollars to protect our Nation's vital interests.

The methodology is straightforward and spelled out in the language at the beginning of the bill:

The Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that

homeland security grants are allocated based on an assessment

of threat, vulnerability, and consequence to the maximum

extent practicable.

This direction would apply to the four major first-responder grant programs administered by the Department of Homeland Security: the State Homeland Security Grant Program; the Urban Area Security Initiative; the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program; and the Citizens Corps Program.

The primary objective of the legislation is accomplished by reducing the amount of funding that each State is guaranteed. Current practice requires a ``small state minimum,'' giving each State at least 0.75 percent of much of the grant funding.

The result is that roughly 38 percent of the funds are marked for distribution before any substantive risk analysis has been performed. That sends disproportionate money to low-risk, rural areas and territories.

For most, this outcome is not acceptable. Funding to bolster the security of our country should go to where the threat is greatest--such as seaports, airports, and national landmarks.

This bill lowers the ``small state minimum'' to 0.25 percent per State. A Homeland Security Grants Board, comprised of seven top Department of Homeland Security officials, including the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Undersecretary of Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, is established to rank grant applications based upon risk. Three factors guide this evaluation: threat, vulnerability, and consequence.

The current system, by contrast, allocates a significant amount of funding to states based upon their population.

To ensure that grant funds are properly accounted for, and utilized within an integrated framework to enhance domestic security, grants must be designed to meet ``essential'' capabilities.

``Essential capabilities'' refers to the ability of regions to address risks by reducing vulnerability to attacks and diminishing the consequences of such attacks by effective response.

This legislation assures that States must demonstrate that they have a detailed, prioritized plan for emergency preparedness and resource allocation, so that Federal funds are assigned to the most effective uses.

States must then quickly distribute the Federal funds to regions and localities.

The notion of risk-based allocation of homeland security grants is not novel. This is a bipartisan approach advocated by both the Bush Administration and the 9/11 Commission.

The 9/11 Commission report said: ``Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.''

Four years ago, President Bush signed Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8, which required the Department of Homeland Security to allocate grant funding ``based on national priorities.''

In April 2005, Representatives Cox and Turner, the Chair and Ranking Member of the House Homeland Security Committee at the time, offered similar legislation to reform the grant process by reducing State minimums and allocating funds based upon risk assessments.

That effort, the ``Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2005,'' passed the House of Representatives as part of the Intelligence Reform bill, but was dropped in conference. This bill is based on the House efforts, and closely tracks the previous bill.

Again, the House has acted, passing legislation last month, by an overwhelming vote of 299-128, to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Committee. A key component is the risk-based allocation of homeland security resources.

This bill, though updated to reflect recent changes at the Department of Homeland Security, marks the continuation of a legislation effort we began last session, with the FORWARD Funding Act. That bill was unsuccessful. Hopefully, this time will be different.

In the post-Cold War world, America needs the flexibility to defend against a different type of enemy. The amorphous nature of the threat and likelihood of asymmetric attacks demands a robust approach.

But our resources are limited, and difficult choices must be made.

We will never know exactly how, when or where the next major attack may occur. But we can refine our risk-assessment capabilities, and make objective analyses and predictions. It follows that our resources should be directed based upon our best estimate of where the next strike might take place.

Two guiding principles--the ability to predict future attacks, coupled with the necessity of utilizing finite resources effectively-- form the backbone of a comprehensive strategy to make our Nation more secure.

The approach is three-pronged: risks of potential terrorist attacks must be accurately assessed; the vulnerability of critical infrastructure and potential targets must be measured; and, resources should be dispersed based upon these assessments.

The Department of Homeland Security was created to accomplish these goals. Yet we find again and again that scarce resources are allocated based on factors unrelated to real security.

For example, last year California's Urban Area Security Initiative grants totaled only $6.81 per capita. Hawaii received $11.55 per capita, and Wyoming, $18.06 per capita.

I recognize the environment in which we are operating, and understand this bill is not a panacea. This bill is a first step towards reducing the threat of terrorist attacks.

Congress should not act alone. The Department of Homeland Security must embrace the concept of risk-based allocation of resources. And it must act on these principles. Slow progress has been made, but the Department's intelligence analysis and vulnerability assessment capabilities must be improved.

We can do better. We must put aside pork-barrel politics and take action to protect all Americans. The security of our Nation hangs in the balance and we cannot afford to wait until it is too late.

This bill was conceived and put forth in the spirit of bipartisanship. I hope that Senators Lieberman and Collins will accept this legislation, which is a reasoned alternative to their approach and a starting point for continued discussion.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this simple, straightforward approach to effectively distribute our Nation's resources and make America secure.

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

Madam President, I rise today to speak on two matters concerning the 2007 continuing resolution.

First, as the chairman of the Interior Subcommittee, I want to let my colleagues know exactly what this continuing resolution means for the agencies within my subcommittee's jurisdiction.

Second, I want to touch briefly on the appropriations process and why it is so important that Congress pass individual appropriations bills.

Let me go through some funding highlights for the agencies and programs under my subcommittee's purview:

The President recently announced his new, National Parks Centennial Initiative. This will provide up to $3 billion over the next 10 years to improve our national parks in preparation for their centennial in 2016. This continuing resolution contains the first $40 million of the $100 million installment the President requested in his 2008 budget.

The amount provided in the continuing resolution for basic operations at our national parks is $1.758 billion, a $40 million increase over last year's level.

The continuing resolution also contains an increase of $70 million in the Forest Service firefighting account. Of that amount, $51 million is provided for basic fire suppression activities.

We have added $19 million to the hazardous fuels reduction account so that important preventive work can continue as well.

The continuing resolution provides an additional $125 million for the Indian Health Service so that the critical medical care so desperately needed in Indian country can be made available.

There is also $60 million for basic operational needs for the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. Together, these agencies manage a conservation and recreation network that spans more than 550 million acres.

Finally, I would like to point out that under this continuing resolution, EPA's Clean Water State Revolving Fund will receive nearly $1.1 billion. That is $200 million more than the 2006 level, which will be used to help local communities meet their wastewater infrastructure needs.

But while there are some funding increases in this continuing resolution, the fact that we are now considering this on the floor today--over 4 months into fiscal year 2007--underscores the

problem with not going through the regular appropriations process.

This resolution essentially provides the same level of funding as fiscal year 2006, with a few exceptions. But this means that dozens of programs and projects did not receive an increase over 2006 levels or did not receive funding at all.

There are, however, a few bright spots in what has otherwise been tough times.

For instance, there is an increase of $3.6 billion in veterans health care and $1.2 billion to help care for our brave military personnel and their families; over a billion dollars for State and local law enforcement assistance grants; $399 million for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP, the same as fiscal year 2006; $1.2 billion for Ryan White CARE grants, an increase of $75.8 million to fund at the newly authorized level; $4.5 billion for Global HIV/AIDS, an increase of $1.3 billion; a $502 million increase for section 8 tenant-based housing vouchers and the first increase in the maximum Pell grant in 4 years, from the current $4,050 to $4,310; and full funding of the Transportation Reauthorization bill for fiscal year 2007.

Yet many programs will not receive increases. For example, in California there is no increase for CalFed. This program plays an important role in increasing California's water supply, restoring fisheries and delta levees, and improving the water quality of the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

Additionally, programs of a critical nature in my State that I fought hard to secure funding for will not receive the resources they deserve. These include State agricultural pest detection, Perchlorate cleanup efforts, and important flood control projects.

That is why it is so significant that Congress does its job to fully consider and approve each individual appropriations bill. This is the best way to ensure that needed projects and programs are funded adequately.

For this reason, I am glad to serve on the Appropriations Committee under the leadership of the Senator from West Virginia. Under his direction, I believe we will pass all 12 bills for fiscal year 2008. First, however, we must dispose of the leftover business from last Congress.

The Chairman is proceeding the best he can, and I believe we need to support this effort and get this done. I urge my colleagues to vote for the passage of this continuing resolution.

Mr. President, I rise with Senator Leahy, Senator Sanders, and Senator Mikulski to introduce legislation to address the continuing threat posed by cluster bombs to innocent civilians around the world.

Our legislation places common sense restrictions on the use of cluster bombs. It prevents any funds from being spent to use, sell or transfer cluster munitions: that have a failure rate of more than one percent; unless the rules of engagement or the agreement applicable to the sale or transfer of such cluster munitions specify that: the cluster munitions will only be used against clearly defined military targets and; will not be used where civilians are known to be present or in areas normally inhabited by civilians.

The bill also requires the President to submit a report to the appropriate Congressional committees on the plan, including estimated costs, by either the United States Government or the government to which U.S. cluster bombs are sold or transferred to clean up unexploded cluster bombs.

Finally, the bill includes a national security waiver that allows the President to waive the prohibition on the use, sale, or transfer of cluster bombs with a failure rate of more than one percent, if he determines it is vital to protect the security of the United States.

The human death toll and injury from these weapons are felt everyday. Innocent children think they are picking up a play toy in the field and suddenly their arm is blown off.

Last November, the International Committee for the Red Cross called for a ban on the use of cluster bombs in highly populated areas. They joined other leading organizations who have also decried the indiscriminate use of these weapons: Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Friends Committee on National Legislation,

Handicap International, and Landmine Action.

Several countries, including Belgium, Germany, and Norway have either instituted a ban or a moratorium on the use and procurement of cluster bombs. More than 30 countries are actively calling for increased international controls on the weapon.

And next week, Norway will host an international conference to explore the possibility of a international treaty to ban certain types of cluster munitions and provide support for the victims of the weapons.

We need to adjust our policies for their use and can do so easily.

Every year, hundreds of civilians are killed and many more are injured due to unexploded cluster bombs.

From the fields of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, through the streets of Kosovo and Iraq, to the arid hills of Afghanistan and the playgrounds of Lebanon, these lethal relics of war continue to cripple life, hope, and peace.

Cluster munitions are large bombs, rockets, or artillery shells that contain up to hundreds of small submunitions, or individual ``bomblets.''

They are intended for attacking enemy troop formations and armor covering over a half mile radius.

Yet, in practice, they pose a real threat to the safety of civilians when used in populated areas because they leave hundreds of unexploded bombs over a very large area and they are often inaccurate.

The non-profit group Handicap International studied the effects of cluster bombs in 24 countries and regions, including Afghanistan, Chechnya, Laos, and Lebanon.

Its report found that civilians make up 98 percent of those killed or injured by cluster bombs. 27 percent of the casualties are children.

As the report shows, cluster bombs end up in streets and cities where men and women go to work and do their shopping.

They end up in groves of trees and fields where children play.

They end up in homes where families live.

In some cases, up to 40 percent of cluster bombs fail to explode, posing a particular danger to civilians long after the conflict has ended.

This is particularly and sadly true of children because bomblets are no bigger than a D battery and in some cases resemble a tennis ball.

Children, outside with their friends and relatives, come across these cluster bombs, pick them up because they look a ball, and start playing with them.

A terrible result often follows as these stories demonstrate.

On March 25, 2003 Abdallah Yaqoob was sleeping in his bed in his family's home in Basra, Iraq when he was hit by shrapnel from a cluster munition strike that hit his neighborhood.

He lost his arm, and his abdomen was severely injured. Abdallah was hit by British L20A1/M85 munition.

Falah Hassan, 13, was injured by an unexploded ground-launched submunition in Iraq on March 26, 2003.

The explosion severed his right hand and spread shrapnel through his body. He lost his left index finger and soft tissue in his lower limbs. Source: Bonnie Docherty/Human Rights Watch.

Hassan Hammade, a 13 year old Lebanese boy, lost four fingers and sustained injuries to his stomach and shoulder after he picked up an unexploded cluster bomb in front of an orange tree.

He said, ``I started playing with it and it blew up. I didn't know it was a cluster bomb--it just looked like a burned out piece of metal.'' Source: Christian Science Monitor.

All the children are too scared to go out now, we just play on the main roads or in our homes.

These unexploded cluster bombs become, in essence, de facto landmines.

Instead of targeting troop formations and enemy armor, unexploded bomblets target innocent civilians, seriously maiming or killing their victims.

This runs counter to our values and counter to the laws of war.

Make no mistake, the impact of unexploded cluster bombs on civilian populations has been devastating.

In Laos alone there are between 9 and 27 million unexploded cluster bombs, leftovers from U.S. bombing campaigns in the 1960s and 1970s. Approximately 11,000 people, 30 percent of them children, have been killed or injured since the war ended. Source: International Committee for the Red Cross.

In the first Gulf War, 61,000 cluster bombs were used containing 20 million bomblets. Since 1991, unexploded bomblets have killed 1,600 innocent men, women, and children and injured more than 2,500.

In Afghanistan in 2001, 1,228 cluster bombs with 248,056 bomblets were used. Between October 2001 and November 2002, 127 civilians were killed by them, 70 percent of them under the age of 18.

In Iraq in 2003, 13,000 cluster bombs with nearly 2 million bomblets were used. Combining the first and second Gulf Wars, the total number of unexploded bomblets in the region is approximately 1.2 million.

An estimated 1,220 Kuwaitis and 400 Iraqi civilians have been killed since 1991. Source: Human Rights Watch.

What gives rise, in part, to my bill are recent developments in Lebanon over alleged use of cluster bombs by Israel.

It is estimated that Israel dropped 4 million bomblets in southern Lebanon and 1 million of these bomblets failed to explode.

As Lebanese children and families have returned to their homes and begin to rebuild, they have been exposed to the danger of these unexploded bomblets lying in the rubble.

22 people, including six children have been killed and 133, including 47 children, injured.

One United Nations official estimates that 40 percent of the cluster bombs launched by Israel in Southern Lebanon failed to explode.

So far, more than 58,000 unexploded bomblets in Lebanon have been destroyed but it will take 12 to 15 months to complete the effort. Source: United Nations humanitarian coordinator for Lebanon.

Looking at these figures it is clear that several countries are awash with unexploded bomblets.

The number is indeed staggering and the consequences are real.

Each death that results from an unexploded American bomblet weakens American diplomacy and American values.

How are we supposed to win the hearts and minds of civilians in these countries when we leave behind such deadly weapons that indiscriminately kill boys and girls?

How are we supposed to speed up reconstruction efforts--building homes, schools, hospitals, clinics, and ensuring electricity and water supplies--when populated areas are littered with these bombs?

Simply put, unexploded cluster bombs fuel anger and resentment and make security, stabilization, and reconstruction efforts that much harder.

And it is not just a humanitarian problem, it is a military problem.

By showering targets with cluster bombs, we ensure that our troops will face thousands of unexploded bomblets as they move forward.

This will force them to change course and slow the mission.

During the Iraq war, U.S. troops would fire six rockets containing 4,000 bomblets to eliminate one artillery piece in a civilian neighborhood. With a 16 percent dud rate, approximately 640 duds were left behind. Source: Human Rights Watch.

As an August 2003 Wall Street Journal article noted: ``Unexploded bomblets render significant swaths of battlefield off-limits to advancing U.S. troops.''

In fact, during the first Gulf War, unexploded cluster munitions killed 22 U.S. troops--6 percent of total U.S. fatalities--and injured 58.

Former Secretary of Defense William Cohen recognized the threat cluster bombs posed to civilians and U.S. troops alike and issued a memorandum which became known as the Cohen Policy.

It stated that beginning in fiscal year 2005, all new cluster bomb would have a failure rate of less than one percent.

This was an important step forward but we must remember that we still have 5.5 million cluster bombs in our arsenals containing 728.5 million bomblets. That is, we are still prepared to use an enormous amount of cluster bombs that have significant failure rates. That is unacceptable.

Let me be clear. While this legislation prohibits the sale, use, or transfer of cluster bombs with a failure rate of more than one percent, it does include a national security waiver to allow the President to waive the restriction.

Instead of exercising the waiver, I would hope that administration would work with Congress to extend the Cohen Policy to the entire U.S. cluster bomb arsenal.

During the 1990s, a comprehensive pact was forged to protect civilians from land mines worldwide. The United States and the international community have since spent millions to remove mines in post-conflict regions.

There is no question there should be a similar program for cluster bombs.

Simply put, this legislation will save lives--civilians and soldiers alike--and will help save the reputation of the United States.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President. I rise today with Senator Hutchison to introduce legislation to reauthorize the extraordinarily successful Breast Cancer Research Stamp for two additional years.

Without Congressional action, this important stamp will expire on December 31 of this year.

This stamp deserves to be extended as it has proven to be highly effective.

Since 1998, over 747 million breast cancer research stamps have been sold--raising $53.76 million for breast cancer research.

California continues to be one of the leading contributors, purchasing over 47 million stamps with $3.6 million going to research-- almost 15 percent of the nationwide contribution.

Furthermore, in September 2005, the General Accounting Office (GAO) released a report showing that the Breast Cancer Research Stamp has been a success and an effective fund-raiser in the effort to increase funds to fight the disease.

The report also indicated that ``grants funded by NIH and DOD using Breast Cancer Research Stamp proceeds have produced significant findings in breast cancer research.''

The National Institutes for Health and the Department of Defense have received approximately $36.7 million and $15.7 million, respectively, putting these research dollars to good use by funding innovative advances in breast cancer research.

For example, a 2002 Department of Defense Concept Award enabled researchers to develop Medical Hyperspectral Imaging (MHSI) technology. This method of imaging helps surgeons determine if they have removed all cancerous tissue during breast cancer surgery.

Thanks to breakthroughs in cancer research, more and more people are becoming cancer survivors rather than cancer victims. Every dollar we continue to raise will help save lives.

One cannot calculate in dollars and cents how the stamp has focused public awareness on this terrible disease and the need for additional research funding.

There is still so much more to do because this disease has far reaching effects on our nation: breast cancer is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer among women after skin cancer. More than three million women are living with breast cancer in the U.S. today, one million of who have yet to be diagnosed. Though much less common, over 1,700 men were diagnosed with breast cancer last year.

This legislations would: extend the authorization of the Breast Cancer Research stamp for two additional years--until December 31, 2009; allow the stamp to continue to have a surcharge of up to 25 percent above the value of a first-class stamp with the surplus revenues going to breast cancer research; not affect any other semi- postal proposals under consideration by the U.S. Postal Service.

I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Hutchison in passing this important legislation to extend the Breast Cancer Research Stamp for another two years.

Until a cure is found, the money from the sale of this unique postal stamp will continue to focus public awareness on this devastating disease and provide hope to breast cancer survivors.

We ask for unanimous consent that the text of the legislation directly follow this statement in the Record.

Mr. President, I voted last Thursday in opposition to the nomination of GEN George W. Casey, Jr., to be the 36th Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army.

This decision did not come easily, but after watching the slow failure of our Iraq strategy since the invasion in March 2003, it was time for some accountability.

This is not to say General Casey, alone, should take the blame for the multitude of mistakes in Iraq. In fact, there is no doubt that the buck stops at the President's desk and this is his war.

It is President Bush more than any other individual who is responsible for the dire situation we face in Iraq today.

It was he who ordered the invasion and he who has stubbornly stuck to a strategy that has put success in Iraq increasingly out of reach.

In addition to President Bush, Vice President Cheney and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld were some of the strongest public backers of the campaign to invade Iraq that failed to plan for the chaotic aftermath that we are now mired in today. And it should not be forgotten that it was George Tenet, then the Director of the CIA, who presided over the flawed intelligence analysis that suggested that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was in the process of developing a nuclear capability. It was Tenet who told us that this intelligence was a ``slam dunk.''

Yet, that said, our military strategy over the past several years should not be free from criticism.

General Casey has served as the commander of Multi-national Force-- Iraq since July 2004. Over these past 2\1/2\ years, I can see little to applaud regarding our military strategy on the ground.

Too many times, in my view, General Casey, and those around him, failed to provide the Congress with accurate assessments of what has been happening in Iraq. For example, it was General Casey who suggested that the situation in Iraq would improve enough following the December 2005 elections that troop reductions could take place in early 2006. He even went so far as to provide specific projections of troop withdrawals, saying in August 2005 that the level of U.S. troops in Iraq could be drawn down to about 100,000 by the spring of 2006.

Earlier, in June 2005, he said, and I quote:

I'm confident that we'll be able to continue to take

reductions over the course of this year based on the security

situation and the progress of the Iraqi security forces.

Time and time again General Casey came before us in Congress and painted an overly optimistic view of the situation on the ground in Iraq. Just last week, at his confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Casey suggested that, rather than a ``slow failure,'' he sees ``slow progress'' in Iraq.

Since General Casey took over as commander of all coalition forces in Iraq, we have seen the following:

Car bombings have grown from 30 a month when General Casey took command to about 80 today.

Daily insurgent attacks have skyrocketed from 50 to some 200 today.

The training of Iraqi forces, which General Casey touted as the means for an exit of U.S. troops from Iraq, has been slow and inconsistent.

In fact, though General Casey called 2006 the ``Year of the Police'' in Iraq, we have seen increased infiltration of Iraqi police forces by Shiite militias and growing Iranian influence.

While 320,000 Iraqi troops have been ``trained and equipped'' according to the Pentagon, our troop level today, 140,000, is just a few thousand less than when General Casey took command in July 2004.

Iraqi security forces have 91 brigades that are taking the ``lead'' in counterinsurgency operations throughout the country, yet these forces are now responsible for the security of only 2 of Iraq's 18 provinces.

I have no doubt that General Casey is a good man with an impeccable character. Many of the mistakes regarding our Iraq strategy are not the result of his leadership.

But it is time that the Senate insists upon accountability.

It is past time for the Senate to provide oversight by showing that we will not accept anything but unvarnished, forthright candor from our military leaders.

We expect independent views from our military leaders,

and this has simply been too often lacking over these past few years.

General Casey deserves credit for his long, dedicated service to this country. But I did not believe he should to be promoted to Chief of Staff of the Army. Therefore, I regretfully cast my vote against his nomination.