Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to recognize the newest members of the Nevada Newspaper Hall of Fame. This month, the Nevada Press Association inducted Frank, Tony, and Ted Hughes into the Hall of Fame for their contributions to journalism in Nevada.

For more than 75 years, the Mineral County Independent News has provided the small town of Hawthorne with valuable news and information about their community. For more than 50 of those 75 years, the Hughes brothers have used their skill for journalism and hometown pride to make the Independent News thrive.

Each of the Hughes brothers started at the Independent News at an early age. Tony Hughes was a paperboy. He would later sweep floors and fold papers on the weekends. Soon after his graduation from high school, Tony was hired full time.

While Tony was the first member of the Hughes family to join the paper, his brothers would soon follow. Frank and Ted Hughes joined Tony to help run the printing presses, sell advertisements and shoot photographs. Today, the brothers manage the day-to-day operations of the Independent News, and each is responsible for writing stories and reporting on the Community.

As I have expressed, the Independent News is a true family business. The paper has a total of four employees. Frank, Tony, and Ted are helped by Heidi Bunch, a receptionist who manages the office.

In an age of large media conglomerates and corporate news, it is refreshing to get the local community angle from the Independent News. Every Thursday, the residents of Hawthorne look to the Independent News to read about community events at local churches, the American Legion, and Schurz Elementary. Subscribers can also read about the local Serpents' football or basketball game as well as view important announcements about the Mineral County school system.

One of the most interesting features to me, though, is the paper's ``Reflections on the Past.'' There you can view a summary of the events in Hawthorne from 20,50, and even 70 years ago. It is an amazing collection of Northern Nevada's rich culture and history.

All of this success is a direct result of the Hughes family. Without their hard work and dedication, this local paper might not be in existence today. I am pleased that Tony, Frank, and Ted Hughes have been recognized for their excellence in journalism, and I am proud to have the opportunity to pay tribute to them before the Senate today. I look forward to continuing to read the Independent News for years to come.

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want the Record to reflect the hard work that has gone into this bill by the managers of the bill, the chairman, Senator Warner, and the ranking member, Senator Levin. There are no two finer Senators in the Senate. They have worked so diligently and so hard on this legislation for which they deserve so much credit for getting us to where we are. They are both dedicated to the service of their country. They are just two of the best, and if not for them we could not be where we are.

I also express my appreciation to Senator Coburn for allowing us to move forward on this legislation this morning.

No.

Mr. President, the days before a long recess are always a hectic time as we scramble to complete our work. This conference took a lot longer then it needed to take, and the events leading up to the filing of this report represented an abuse of the process. The Senate passed this bill 3 weeks ago, but the House waited until yesterday to appoint conferees. The conferees conducted one perfunctory public meeting last night where no bill language was provided, no amendments allowed; and no votes taken in public. In fact, there seemed to be more interest by the majority conferees in determining what additional unrelated bills could be jammed into this conference overnight and not on improving our homeland security.

These types of shenanigans really show a lack of respect for the members of this institution and a disregard for the serious task at hand.

I was encouraged when this bill passed the Senate 3 weeks ago. Senators from both sides of the aisle worked together to pass a transportation security bill for seaports, mass transit, freight rail, and commercial aviation systems and actually extended expiring Customs fees in an attempt to pay for some of the new port security initiatives.

Three weeks later after negotiations with the House, all but the port security initiatives were dropped at the insistence of the House Republicans, despite overwhelming support in the Senate. The new initiatives for the mass transit and freight rail system would have fulfilled an important recommendation of the 9/11 Commission Report, which recommended that the Federal Government address a much broader range of transportation security issues in addition to those undertaken in commercial aviation.

A Democratic amendment adopted in the Senate also would have provided a source of funding to fund some of the new port initiatives in the bill, given the fact that we are not adequately funding current port security programs. This meager attempt to begin to fund these programs was also dropped at the insistence of the House Republicans.

It has now been 5 years since the attack on the World Trade Center and little has been done to make our transportation systems more secure other then the obvious improvements in commercial aviation. There is no urgency by this administration. One gets the feeling that they believe these transportation security issues are really not a Federal responsibility and instead should be funded by State and local governments or the private sector. Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff scoffed at the idea of spending money to protect Americans who use mass transit, noting that a bomb in a subway car would kill only 30 people. Other Republicans, including Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Henkey, have said that they think rail and transit security should be a State and local or private responsibility.

Democrats believe Government cannot `pass the buck' on protecting Americans from the threat of a deadly terrorist attack to the private sector or to our already-squeezed State and local governments.

The U.S. mass transit industry has said it needs $5.2 billion in capital expenditures from the Federal Government to protect American citizens from deadly terrorist attacks. But, since 2003, the Federal Government has only invested a total of roughly $400 million in transit and rail security for the entire country, compared to $20 billion on aviation security during that same period. President Bush's Fiscal Year 2007 budget completely eliminated rail and transit security grants and intercity bus grants, which were funded at paltry amounts in 2006.

This is just another example of misplaced priorities. According to the RAND Corporation, there are about 30 terrorist attacks on trains and rail-related targets per year. Our close allies in Britian, Spain, and India have been the victims of deadly terrorist attacks on rail and transit targets in recent years. Yet Republicans stripped rail security out of this bill so they could add unrelated provisions.

I am proud of the work of the Democratic caucus on this bill and on earlier homeland security measures. It was a Democratically controlled Senate that passed a landmark aviation security bill and a comprehensive port security bill immediately after 9/11--over the objections of the Republican-controlled House and the White House. These bills acknowledged for the first time that securing our maritime trade and our commercial air passenger system were national security responsibilities of the Federal Government and should not be relegated to contractors or the private sector. Similarly, Democrats have led the way in developing and pushing security measures during this Congress related to ports, freight rail, aviation and mass transit, and I am proud of the work the caucus has done on this bill.

The port security provisions in here reflect a lot of hard work and bipartisan effort, so are worthy of our support. But, I don't take a lot of pride in giving the American people half a loaf when it comes to security. I think all in all, this is another time that the Republican majority has let the American people down. And I hope that the American people are sick of half a loaf and will agree with me on the need for a new direction.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I support this legislation. I have for many months. This was reported out of the committee sometime in July. And from that time to today, we have given the majority a proposal for a limited number of amendments. When we get back after the election--I have spoken to the majority leader-- certainly there is a commitment from us that we would complete this bill very expeditiously. This has been rejected.

As I have indicated, this bill has been on the calendar since July, and it has not been scheduled. We could have acted on this a long time ago. It was held up initially because of an arms control measure that was placed in the bill by Senator Lugar. And a number of people on the majority side, the Republican side, held this up. It took a lot of time. It was not brought forward. And that is unfortunate.

So I will object to this consent request. I look forward to working with the majority leader in November to complete this act. It is very important. I acknowledge that. I hope, certainly, we can do that during the lame-duck session. It is one of my priorities.

Mr. President, if I may say a final word. The problem with the managers' amendment, all the amendments are Republicans' amendments. We don't have the numbers, but I think we have a few amendments that would strengthen the bill. We have discussed this publicly and privately and here is where we are. It is unfortunate. It is something that should be done. There is not a country in the world, in my opinion, that deserves more attention than India--maybe some as much as them, but they have been a good partner of ours. I think this would be a step forward for the world and our two countries.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield. I know I speak for both of us in expressing our appreciation to our Senate staff. It is 2:30 in the morning, and they have been here long, long hours. We get a lot of things done here, but it is not on our own. We have a wonderful staff that does so much.

We have the pages, some of whom are still here, and they are juniors in high school. We have the doorkeepers, the Capitol Police, the official reporters, and the fine floor staff that makes it possible to get all this complicated stuff done. It could not be done without them. They get very little recognition.

To them, I say thank you very much to all of you who do such wonderful things for us personally, and it all winds up being for our country.

Mr. President, it is my understanding we have basically 3\1/2\ amendments remaining. We have one on which debate is nearing completion, and then we have three other amendments. We have an hour equally divided on each of those three amendments. On the amendment that is before the Senate dealing with the habeas corpus aspect of this legislation, we have a number of people--and we have conveyed this to the majority--who wish to speak. It takes up about an hour of extra time.

I say to everyone within the sound of my voice--namely, 44 Democrats, especially those who have indicated to the cloakroom they want to speak on this issue--we had time lined up yesterday, and because of quorum calls time was lost. Unless we get more time from the majority, there will be no time to speak, other than the time that is in the unanimous consent agreement that is the order before the Senate on the three amendments, and whatever time is remaining on the amendment being led by Senator Specter and Senator Leahy.

Again, if somebody wants time, they can't always have it so when they get here, they can walk on. Senators might have to wait around for a little while because yesterday we lost a significant amount of Democratic time as a result of Senators not being available to speak.

We have a couple more days. Hopefully, we can finish this tomorrow or Saturday, but we have a lot to do. We will need cooperation from all Senators if, in fact, they want to cooperate.

For this little conclusion, I will use leader time.

I ask unanimous consent that 5 minutes from Senator Rockefeller and Senator Kennedy--they both have a half hour on their respective amendments--be transferred to Senators Clinton and John Kerry. They will each have 5 minutes to speak. And that I have 12 minutes under my control remaining on the bill and that time be equally divided between Senators Feinstein and Feingold. They will each have 6 minutes to speak on the bill.

This adds no time to the bill.

That is 23 minutes, plus the good offices of Senator Specter may give the Senator additional time.

Mr. President, I have received a letter from over 100 law professors and other distinguished citizens expressing their opposition to the habeas corpus provisions in the military tribunal bill. They urge support for the Specter-Leahy amendment to remedy that flaw. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it is my understanding I am to speak and the majority leader will speak and then we will vote; is that true?

Mr. President, on a bright and sunny September morning 5 years ago, history changed in an instant. Our Nation was attacked. Nearly 3,000 of our citizens were murdered, and our lives as we knew them were forever changed.

The family members of those who died that day and we, their fellow Americans, have been waiting 5 years for those who masterminded that outrageous terrorist attack to be brought to justice. Osama bin Laden, a man whom we have seen on videotape bragging and laughing about his role in conceiving this deed, remains at large 5 years later. The American people are justifiably frustrated that he has not been caught. They have a right to ask whether our military and intelligence resources were unwisely diverted from that solemn task.

But some of Osama bin Laden's lieutenants were captured overseas years ago. There is no disagreement whatsoever between Republicans and Democrats on the need to bring these people to justice. We all want to make sure the President has the tools he needs to make this happen.

For 5 years, Democrats stood ready to work with the President and the Republican Congress to establish sound

procedures for military tribunals. Mr. President, why do you think the Democratic ranking member of the Judiciary Committee has been so outraged at what has been going on? He is outraged because as the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, he introduced a bill in 2002 to solve the problems that are now before the Senate--4 years ago. No wonder he is incensed.

Unfortunately, President Bush chose to ignore Senator Leahy and the Congress and ignore the advice of uniformed military professionals. He set up a flawed and imbalanced military tribunal system that failed to prosecute a single terrorist. Not surprisingly, it was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Forced by the Court decision to ask Congress for help, the Bush administration initially asked us, the Congress, to rubberstamp basically the same system that the Supreme Court struck down. Their proposal for one-sided trials and murky interrogation rules was opposed by such well-respected leaders as GEN Colin Powell and former Secretary of State George Shultz, both Republicans, and many others, Democrats and Republicans.

I must say, a handful of principled Republican Senators, led by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, Senator Graham from South Carolina, and Senator McCain from Arizona stepped forward and forced the White House to back down from the worst elements of its extreme proposal. I appreciate the position of those Republican Senators, the names I have given you.

I repeat, Mr. President, I admire their courage. I appreciate the improvements they managed to make in this bill. But for them what is before us would be a lot worse.

However, since those Senators announced their agreement with the administration last Friday, the compromise has become much worse. The bill before us now looks more and more like the administration bill these Senators fought so hard against.

I believe the bill approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee would have given the President all necessary authority. It was supported by the chairman and a bipartisan majority of that committee, as well as our Nation's uniformed military lawyers.

The bill before us diverges from the committee bill in many ways, but let me talk about two.

First, it makes less clear that the United States will abide by our obligations under the Geneva Conventions. The President says the United States does not engage in torture and there should be no ambiguity on that point, but this bill gives the President authority to reinterpret our obligations and limits judicial oversight of that process, putting our own troops at risk on the battlefield.

A four-star general, former Secretary of State, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, GEN Colin Powell, wrote:

The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.

Second, this bill authorizes a vast expansion of the President's power to detain people, even U.S. citizens, indefinitely and without charge. There are no procedures for doing so. There is no due process provided, and no time limit on the detention is set.

At the same time, the bill would deprive Federal judges of the power to review the legality of many such detentions. Judges--all judges-- would have no power to review the legality of many such detentions. This is true even in the case of a lawful permanent resident arrested and held in the United States, and even if that person happens to be completely innocent.

The Framers of our Constitution understood the need for checks and balances. This bill has thrown that principle right out the window.

Many of the worst provisions were not in the committee-reported bill and were not in the compromise announced last Friday. They were added over the weekend. Remember, there was a bill that was put before the Senate last Thursday, and from Thursday to Monday, it changed after, I say, back-room meetings with White House lawyers.

We have tried to improve this legislation. My friend, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Carl Levin, proposed to substitute the bipartisan bill reported by the Armed Services Committee. That amendment was rejected basically on a party-line vote.

Senators Specter and Leahy, the two Members who are responsible for the Judiciary Committee, the chairman and ranking member, offered an amendment to restore the right of judicial review. This amendment was rejected on a party-line vote.

And Senator Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, offered an amendment to improve congressional oversight of the CIA programs. This amendment was rejected on a party-line vote.

Senator Kennedy offered an amendment to clarify that inhumane interrogation tactics prohibited by the Army Field Manual could not be used on Americans or on others. That amendment was rejected on a party- line vote. Senator Byrd, who has seen things come and go in this body and who has been a Member of Congress for more than 50 years, offered an amendment to sunset military commissions so Congress would be required to reconsider this far-reaching authority after 5 years of having it in effect. That commonsense, realistic amendment was rejected on a party-line vote.

I personally believe, having been in a few courtrooms, that this legislation is unconstitutional. It will certainly be struck down by the Supreme Court in the years ahead, and when that happens, we will be back here debating how to bring terrorists to justice.

The families of the 9/11 victims and the Nation have been waiting 5 years for the perpetrators of these attacks to be brought to justice. They should not have to wait longer. We should get this right now; we should do it right. We are not doing so by passing this bill.

The national security policies of this administration and this Republican Congress may have been tough, but they certainly haven't been smart. The American people are paying a tremendous price for their mistakes. History will judge our actions here today. I am convinced that future generations will view passage of this bill as a grave error. I will be recorded as voting against this piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I dislike, I find repulsive, and I do not condone these evil and horrible people, these terrorists. They should be brought before the bar of justice and given what they deserve. For 5 years, that has not been the case. We Democrats want terrorists brought to justice quickly and in a way in keeping with our Constitution and, in this manner, give honor to the sacrifices made by American patriots in days past.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to honor the life of Special Agent John Lawrence Bailey. More than 15 years ago, Special Agent Bailey gave his life in the line of duty. Today, in a fitting memorial, law enforcement agents throughout Nevada enter the Federal Bureau of Investigation building in Las Vegas that bears his name.

John Bailey was an American success story. Born in 1942, he attended the University of Pittsburgh on an athletic scholarship. Shortly after receiving his degree, John enrolled in the United States Marine Corps. He would answer his nation's call by joining thousands of young men who went to Vietnam. There, John was awarded the Vietnam Campaign Medal, the Vietnam Service Award, and a Bronze Star. After Vietnam, John entered Quantico and began his distinguished career with the FBI.

While John had numerous work accomplishments, those who knew him best could say that he was most proud of his family. It is not easy being in Federal law enforcement, but his family was always supportive. Joined by his wife Beth and their two daughters, Amanda and Megan, the Baileys came to Nevada in 1977.

On the morning of June 25, 1990, Special Agent Bailey found himself in the middle of an armed robbery in a bank. Instead of standing by in fear, John confronted the robbers and drew his weapon. The robbers quickly turned and Special Agent Bailey fired. The bullet missed one suspect, but Agent Bailey was able to capture them and end the robbery. While securing the suspects, something distracted him. In that split second, a robber recovered his weapon and shot John. He died at the scene.

His heroism that day to save the lives of his fellow citizens was not out of the ordinary for those who knew John. As a 21 year veteran of the FBI, John was a highly decorated agent. He was known throughout the Nevada law enforcement community for his efforts to break up organized crime in Las Vegas. His work even touched my life.

John Bailey was a good man and a friend. When I was the commissioner of the Nevada Gaming Control Board, I worked with John to clean up the gaming industry. It wasn't an easy task because organized crime had deep roots in Las Vegas. Each day, I faced threats against my life and against my family. There were even attempts to bribe me. Special Agent Bailey made the arrests on the gangsters who were after me. I will never forget him.

For all these reasons, I was pleased that the FBI decided to name their building in Las Vegas after Special Agent Bailey. It is a fitting tribute for a fallen officer. Later this fall, the FBI will be moving to a new building in Las Vegas. It is important to the FBI--and to me personally--that the new building at 1787 West Lake Mead Boulevard continue to carry the name of Special Agent John Bailey. Soon, I look forward to touring this new ``John Lawrence Bailey Memorial Building.''

I am pleased to have this opportunity to honor John before the Senate. With the dedication of the new FBI building. I am hopeful that future generations of law enforcement officers will be able to take a moment to reflect on the life and accomplishments of this distinguished officer.

Mr. President, I rise to recognize the 50th anniversary of the Northeastern Nevada Historical Society. This important event is a testament to the hard work of many individuals across Nevada, and it is worthy of recognition today.

Since its founding in 1956, the Historical Society has grown from a membership of 8 to include over 2,000 members this year. Throughout this half century, the Historical Society has dedicated itself to the preservation of Nevada's heritage. Its collection of documents, artifacts, and art has become a valuable resource for genealogists, historians, Nevada residents, and visitors.

Today, almost any member of the public has access to the extensive research materials of the Northeastern Nevada Historical Society. Legal documents, personal papers, newspapers, maps, oral histories, family histories, and municipal records combine with a library of more than 2,200 books and 33,000 photographs to enhance the collection.

In 1968, the Northeastern Nevada Historical Society founded a museum in Elko. The Northeastern Nevada Museum houses the Historical Society's collections and permanent displays as well as special exhibits. The museum has prospered through the years, adding exhibition space to accommodate an increasingly large collection and growing popularity among patrons. It is a source of pride for the entire Elko community.

The Historical Society's collections represent many different faces of Nevada. Exhibits on geology and natural history display the prehistory of Nevada. Another important exhibit is the treasure trove of artifacts from the Great Basin Indian tribes. History comes alive at the museum through representations of the Pony Express, mining camps, the California Trail, and the Basque and Chinese experience in the West. The museum's collection extends into the 21st century to reflect the well-preserved wilderness and contemporary art that define Nevada today.

The Historical Society has also reached out to the residents of northeastern Nevada. They welcome school groups, sponsor speaker series and slide shows, and host local artists. At the same time, the Historical Society extended its reach beyond the local region by publishing a quarterly journal and attracting museum visitors from many different states and countries.

I can confidently say that the people of Nevada are grateful for the Historical Society's dedicated effort to preserve the rich history of our State. I am proud to commend the Northeastern Nevada Historical Society and extend my congratulations on the Society's 50th anniversary. I am confident that the next 50 years will be just as successful as the past 50 have been.

Mr. President, I appreciate the majority leader yielding. So everyone understands where we are, let me repeat what the majority leader said. As things now stand, we are going to have a cloture vote on the Hamdan matter, the Supreme Court detainee situation that now confronts the country, sometime this evening.

What we are going to try to do in the next hour or so is work out a unanimous consent agreement that there will be amendments allowed to be offered on the Hamdan matter. There would be amendments. We would agree between the leader and me as to how much time will be on the amendments.

I have cleared this matter with most everyone. As I told the leader today, I still have to work things out with two other members of the Judiciary Committee. Hopefully, I can do that. If not, what will happen is cloture will be invoked on Hamdan and then 30 hours will start, and there will be cloture on the fence bill, the barrier bill, sometime tomorrow. We are trying to work our way through this so the Hamdan matter will have some debate on it and some amendments offered on it. We are doing our best to do that.

As I said yesterday, late in a session such as this, everyone becomes a

Charles Atlas--one person can stop anything. They have the right to do that. We understand that. But procedurally that is where we are now. Hopefully, we can work our way through this and have some debate on this detainee matter and move on to the fence bill, hopefully work something out on that, and put us on a glidepath to completing the work of the body, as the majority wants to do, in the next couple of days.

Of course.

Mr. President, reclaiming the floor for just a moment, I say to my friend from Vermont, I consider him a Charles Atlas today and any time I have ever served with him in the Senate. He is one of the most senior Members in the Senate. He is the person the Democrats have designated to be the arbiter of issues that go on in the Judiciary Committee, the busiest committee in the Senate.

I also say to my friend that he is not only a U.S. Senator but a very good one, and I look forward to working with him to work through this issue, and with other members of the committee, as I mentioned, not in name, but there are others I need to work with on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. President, Senator Jeffords has been a friend and colleague for many years. We had the opportunity to serve together in the House of Representatives. We served together in the Senate. To say that he has made history during his time in Congress is an understatement. But more important, he has made a difference. I have always been impressed by his knowledge of the issues, his dedication to the public well-being, and the environment. I have had the good fortune of serving with him on the Environment and Public Works Committee. He is a stalwart. He is a true believer that the environment is in distress and things need to be done to change our environment.

He has worked to preserve the middle class and to provide for the safety of the American people in so many different ways. Senator Jeffords is a man of conscience. No one can question that. He grew up in Vermont where the Jeffords family first settled in the 18th century. His father was a longtime member of the Supreme Court. After Jim Jeffords graduated from Yale, he served in the Navy on active duty for 4 years. He served then in the Naval Reserve, retiring as a captain. Senator Jeffords studied law at Harvard--Yale and Harvard--which shows his intellect. He returned after having finished law school to Vermont to practice law. Shortly thereafter, he was elected to the Vermont State Senate and then attorney general. He was elected to the House of Representatives in 1975 and served there until he came to the Senate in 1989.

In walking in here I grabbed a book that has a lot of definitions. I flipped to courage. Whatever definition you have of courage, you can pick one here going back to two centuries ago:

I love the man who can smile on trouble, who can gather

strength from distress and grow brave by reflection. It is

the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is

firm and whose conscience has approved his conduct will

pursue his principles unto death.

That really is Jim Jeffords, and that, Mr. President, is a quote from Thomas Payne. I have seen up close Jim Jeffords' courage. Everyone knows, as it has been written about in books, the conversations that Senator Jeffords and I had prior to Senator Jeffords deciding that he wanted to

change course and become an Independent. That was not an easy decision. It involved years of friendship, and it involved years of his being a member of two different legislative bodies on Capitol Hill.

Most of our discussions took place on the Senate floor as people were walking around, but we had conversations in private. I know firsthand, I repeat, of the courage of this man. I in my now long public career have been involved in a number of things that I will always remember, but I will never, ever remember anything more vividly than the Senator from Vermont, as a matter of principle and courage, changing not only his course but the course of this country.