Floor Statements

That will be sufficient.

Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman allowing me to speak and also I appreciate the Senator from Kansas allowing me to speak briefly before he does.

I want to express my support for the provisions in this budget that go to the veterans programs. I want to deal with that in a minute.

First, I would like to point out to this body that this afternoon, ADM William Fallon, who is the commander of Central Command, resigned his position. We are not sure exactly how this is going to affect the administration's policies or Admiral Fallon's long-term willingness to express his views on administration policies, but I want to express my own regret that Admiral Fallon, who has served our country more than 40 years, has decided to resign his post in part, apparently, because of his concerns about some of the administration's policies.

I know a little something about resigning. I resigned my position when I was Secretary of the Navy when I was unable to support some dramatic reductions in the Navy shipbuilding program. Those are not easy decisions to make. I would also point out that this administration is not an administration that has tolerated dissent from our military leaders or, for that matter, is not an administration that has been very willing to seek advice from our military leaders, our senior military leaders, particularly when that advice is not in strict accordance with its own political views.

It should be pointed out that Admiral Fallon, who is the commander of Central Command, which is the overarching command that also includes Iraq, is now the third CENTCOM commander in recent history to have had at least some form of concerns about policies in that region.

Before we invaded Iraq, GEN Tony Zinni, Marine Corps general, former CENTCOM commander, spoke out strongly against invading Iraq, as did GEN Joe Hoare, former CENTCOM commander. So I think we need to see a greater willingness among our political process to listen to the views of people who have had long service and who have concerns about where this country is going.

There are too many people who have been involved at the top levels in the Pentagon who tend to believe that Iraq is something of an island, that you can separate what is going on in Iraq from other issues that are affecting the entire region. This is a region that is in chaos, all the way from Lebanon to Pakistan, as we well know. We need the advice, the contributions of global thinkers.

Admiral Fallon was one of them, Admiral Mullen is another, people who bring another sort of strategic perspective into this debate. I am profoundly concerned that Admiral Fallon has decided to take this measure, and I am hoping that we can hear from him in a more specific way in the future.

In fact, I would point out that I recently signed two letters on January 17, one to Chairman Levin of the Armed Services Committee and another to Senator Biden of the Foreign Relations Committee, both of which I sit on as a member, asking specifically that they invite Admiral Fallon, among others, to testify in consonance with General Petraeus's testimony coming up this year.

I was saying last September that it was an error, I believe, only to focus on what General Petraeus was saying in the stovepipe of Iraq rather than to hear these strategic thinkers talking about the region at large. So I hope we can do that in some greater detail in the near future.

Again, I want to express my profound appreciation for the service that Admiral Fallon has given our country.

With respect to the veterans provisions in this budget, we on this side have put more money into it. We have listened to the joint opinions of our major veterans groups. A big part of this is the GI bill, which I introduced my first day in office. We now have 49 cosponsors on this bill which will give those people who have been serving since 9/11 the same level of benefits as those who came back in World War II.

On the one hand, we hear so many people, particularly in this administration, talking about how these who have been serving since 9/ 11 are the next ``greatest generation,'' and on the other, this administration itself seems to oppose giving our veterans of this time period the same benefits we gave those who served during World War II-- a GI bill that literally transformed notions of class and privilege in the United States.

I would remind my colleagues that for every dollar in tax remuneration that was paid on the World War II GI bill, we received $7 in tax benefits because of the way they were able to advance their careers.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business and to take such time as required for myself, Senators Hagel, Warner, and Lautenberg to discuss the reintroduction of S. 22, the GI bill legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of the Senator from New Hampshire, the senior Senator from Montana be recognized on our side.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this bill but in support of the concepts that have motivated it. I think the Senator from Wisconsin fully understands this. We have discussed this.

I wanted to add my comments with that perspective in mind, because I do not agree with a lot of the comments coming from the other side of the aisle with respect to why this amendment should be defeated.

I cannot support personally an amendment that involves an entrenchment on an appropriations measure. I do not believe the best way for us to address this situation is to cut off funds or to stipulate a series of conditions that might be overinclusive or underinclusive, depending on the situation on the ground in Iraq.

But at the same time, I strongly disagree with the notion that a withdrawal from Iraq at this time is premature. I believe that with the right national leadership, first, we never should have gone into Iraq, but, secondly, that we could have begun a withdrawal with the right national strategy more than 4 years ago.

What we have been engaged in since shortly after the invasion is an occupation, not a war. It has been a military holding action. In the context of history, a military holding action takes place in order to enable the political process and, unfortunately, we have not seen that sort of political leadership from this administration. That is a totally different concept than the one that seems to make it into our debates here.

I have written a lot of books in my life. I made my living before I came to the Senate writing histories and novels. There were many times when I watched this debate that I would think about how this is going to look through the prism of history. How are people going to look back at this period of years in terms of how our national leaders were conducting themselves?

One thought that sticks in my mind is that we tend, when we debate Iraq, to look at this issue almost as if Iraq was an island in the middle of an ocean, disconnected from the rest of the region or even the rest of the world. That is ironically how we ended up in Iraq in the first place, because once we started debating whether we would go into Iraq, we changed from a debate about the dangers of international terrorism and started focusing more and more specifically simply on Saddam Hussein, on the conditions inside Iraq, which obviously was a country that was not even directly threatening us. Most of us sitting on the outside who had years of experience in national security could see that, even as the debate narrowed into Iraq rather than international terrorism.

We are doing it again. We are doing it again when we talk about the success or failure of the surge or where we should go from here with respect to this block or that block or this city or that city or this specific unit of the military. We have fallen into what could be called a double strategic mousetrap. On the one hand, we have the greatest maneuver forces in the world bogged down, occupying cities in one country that was not even threatening us, while the people we are supposed to be going after, the forces of international terrorism, know no international boundaries, work the seams of international law, and are able to maneuver at will. We are seeing that clearly.

Before I went to Iraq in November, I was getting briefings. The comments and the briefings from the Pentagon were that terrorism activity had been reduced inside Iraq. I mentioned I have been doing this for 40 years, from the time I was a young marine. If I were the forces of international terrorism, I don't think I would be in Anbar Province right now either. I think I would be heading to Afghanistan and Pakistan. That suggestion was basically dismissed in the briefings. Within a few weeks, Benazir Bhutto was assassinated by al-Qaida, and we are seeing heightened activity in Afghanistan such as, less than a week ago a suicide bombing at a dog fight near Kandahar, where more than 100 people were killed by al-Qaida. That is what a strategic mousetrap is.

When you are going up against people who know what they are doing and who are very dedicated to it, you get yourself bogged down in one spot where you can't get out, and then they have the maneuverability.

The second strategic mousetrap we can clearly see involves how we are addressing the rest of the world. In terms of our military posture, we have burned out our military. We are not focusing properly on the strategic issues facing us globally, particularly the situation that we face with an ever-evolving China, and the need to regrow our Navy. And our national economy is going into a tailspin.

When I look at this region, I see a region in chaos. We can talk about whether you can go to the market in Baghdad. Wherever the U.S. military has been sent, it has done its job historically. I had the honor of serving in Vietnam. On the 20th anniversary of the fall of Vietnam, the Communist government admitted that it lost 1.4 million soldiers dead on the battlefield; this illusive guerilla force, 1.4 million soldiers dead. We did our job. That doesn't address the larger issues in which the military performs its job and doesn't address that issue in Iraq today either.

We are very proud of what our military has done. I am proud of my son. He served as an enlisted Infantry marine in Ramadi in some of the worst fighting. But this region is in turmoil from Lebanon to Pakistan. Anyone who has been involved in these issues intimately understands that. People are betting against us, not in terms of our military operations but as a leading nation.

When we were preparing to go into Iraq, it cost $24 for a barrel of oil. Yesterday the market closed above $101 for

a barrel of oil. When we were getting ready to go into Iraq, as I recall, gold was less than $300 an ounce. It is up almost at $1,000 an ounce today. The dollar is in jeopardy. Our budgets are in deficits. Our infrastructure is diminishing to the point that we have to worry about whether we can be a leading nation in terms of technology, the sorts of things that have always made us great--roads, bridges. All of these issues do tie together. Even when we start arguing about how this surge has affected the conditions inside Iraq, if we are going to be honest, if we are going to look at the situation as it really is rather than simply as one political side or another wants to make it, we have a lot going on in Iraq, a lot of moving pieces that don't exactly add up to the possibility of great success in the near term.

I have heard people from General Petraeus to people on the other side talk about how the surge is responsible for the period of decreased activity in Al Anbar, around Ramadi. That began before the surge was announced. There were two reasons for that. One, al-Qaida overplayed its hand there. The Sunnis made a deal with our side. The Sunni insurgency made a deal with our side and they hated al-Qaida more than they hate us. We don't know how long this is going to last. They don't like an occupying force.

The second is, al-Qaida is pretty smart. They are fluid. They are mobile while we are tied down. If you go up to the Kurdish areas, which have been sort of the bulwark of our strength in terms of relations, we see that the Turkish parliament has approved military activity by their military inside Iraq. They have begun an incursion more than a week ago where they have been operating inside northern Iraq. Imagine what the other side would be saying right now if the Iranians were conducting military activities inside Iraq. We have a region that has been filled with chaos from refugees, external refugees, internal refugees, by some accounts more than 30 percent of pre-Iraq war population refugees, either outside the country, heavily burdening Syria--by the way, more than a million refugees in Syria--but also inside. Eighty percent of those internal refugees in Iraq right now are women and children.

We need to be able to address this honestly, and we need to be able to agree that the way out of this isn't simply through the performance of our military. It is that we need national leadership that will put a formula together so that we can remove our military. There is no true strategy if you cannot articulate an end point. When you look at it, one of the things I keep going back to is what General Dwight Eisenhower said in the dark days of the Korean war when we were stuck in a stalemate, when he was thinking about running for President and then running for President. One might compare this with comments we hear from the present administration. He said:

[The Korean War] was never inevitable, it was never

inescapable. . . . When the enemy struck, on that June day of

1950, what did America do? It did what it always has done in

all its times of peril. It appealed to the heroism of its

youth. . . . The answer to that appeal has been what any

American knew it would be. It has been sheer valor on all the

Korean mountainsides that, each day, bear fresh scars of new

graves. Now--in this anxious autumn--from these heroic men

there comes back an answering appeal. It is no whine, no

whimpering plea. It is a question that addresses itself to

simple reason. It asks: Where do we go from here? When comes

the end? Is there an end? These questions touch all of us.

They demand truthful answers. Neither glib promises nor glib

excuses will serve. They would be no better than the glib

prophecies that brought us to this pass. . . . The first task

of a new Administration will be to review and re-examine

every course of action open to us with one goal in view: To

bring the Korean War to an early and honorable end.

I suggest that is the prospect that faces all of us. On what do we need to be focusing? I agree, by the way, that this is not something that is going to get us very far in the next couple of days, other than to air our concerns. We need to be getting a GI bill for the people who have been serving since 9/11. I would invite people from the other side of the aisle to support this. We keep calling these people the next greatest generation. They deserve a GI bill at the same level of those who served during World War II when they got all tuition paid for, books bought for them, and a monthly stipend. I introduced that bill my first day as a Senator last year. We have more than 30 cosponsors. Let's come together. Let's make that happen. Let's give these people the first-class future they deserve.

We need to focus on the agreement that is now being negotiated between this administration and the Maliki government, where they are saying they will consult with the Congress. This type of long-term agreement, going into security issues, is, in fact, a treaty, no matter what we call it. It is a treaty that they are negotiating, and we in the Senate should advise and consent on that. We need to focus on the wartime contracting commission that just became law where we can root out fraud, waste, and abuse, the billions of dollars of no-bid and instant contracts that were put into Iraq from 2003 forward. In other words, let's create the environment where we can get the right kind of diplomatic solution and remove our combat troops from Iraq. Let's focus on the future.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I wish to introduce a resolution to commemorate the 175th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the United States and Thailand and the 80th birthday anniversary of His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand, and also to express our recognition for the success of the recent parliamentary election in that country.

I am very pleased to be joined by Senator Biden and Senator Lugar, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, together with Senators Warner, Dodd, Hagel, Boxer, and Murkowski as cosponsors of this resolution.

Next month will mark 175 years of a special friendship between the United States and Thailand, which began with the signing of the Treaty of Amity and Commerce in 1833 during the administration of President Andrew Jackson, making Thailand our first treaty ally in Asia.

Throughout the years, Thailand has often been a close friend and strategic partner of the United States and has proven to be a dependable key ally in Southeast Asia, helpful to the United States' interests in that region.

Sharing our values of freedom and liberty, Thailand has partnered with the United States in fighting numerous military engagements throughout our history, including its current support in the global war on terror.

In 2003, President Bush declared Thailand a major non-NATO ally, a designation which represents a close and extensive relationship between our two countries.

The United States has enjoyed dynamic, vast, and varied cooperation and partnership with Thailand, which have not only strengthened our bilateral relations, but in many ways have also benefitted the Asian region as a whole.

For more than a quarter century, Thailand has been the host country of Cobra Gold--the United States annual multinational military training exercise--to promote regional stability and security cooperation. As another case in point, the United States and Thailand's joint relief operations in the wake of the tragic 2004 tsunami promoted the overall capacity of the international humanitarian forces in providing relief, setting a model for effective humanitarian operations in the region.

Madam President, I have visited Thailand many times over the past 25 years and have many friends in that country. I had the privilege of visiting

Thailand last year for the first time as a sitting Senator and was very pleased to see so much cooperation with the United States, particularly with our military. During our meetings, I was also gratified to see that so many Thai military leaders and Government leaders had been educated and trained in the United States--leading to the sense of lasting friendship and goodwill between our two countries toward our mutual interests.

On another important point, as was promised at the time of the political coup, which occurred in 2006, I am very pleased to be able to remind and reassure my colleagues that Thailand held democratic, free, and fair parliamentary elections in December of last year, marking a successful return to full-fledged democracy.

So I congratulate the new Thai Government. I look forward to the continuation of the long tradition of friendship and close cooperation between Thailand and the United States.

I urge quick passage of this resolution, which I now send to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 7, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on the final report of the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet

during the session of the Senate on February 7, 2008, at 10 a.m., in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Reforming the Regulation of the Government Sponsored Enterprises.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 7, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building, in order to conduct an executive hearing.

Agenda

Robert A. Sturgell, to be Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (PN 1005); Simon Charles Gros, to be Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Governmental Affairs, Department of Transportation (PN 977).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 7, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Selling to Seniors: The Need for Accountability and Oversight of Marketing and Sales by Medicare Private Plans.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 7, 2008, at 9:30 a.m. in order to hold a hearing on the Kenyan elections.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 7, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. in order to hold a nomination hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Founding Fathers' Papers: Ensuring Public Access to our National Treasures'' on Thursday, February 7, 2008 at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Witness List

David G. McCullough, Presidential Historian and Author, Camden, ME.

Dr. Stanley N. Katz, Chairman, Papers of the Founding Fathers, Professor, Woodrow Wilson School of Princeton University Princeton, NJ.

Dr. Deanna B. Marcum, Associate Librarian of Library Services, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.

Rebecca W. Rimel, President and Chief Executive Officer, The Pew Charitable Trusts, Phiadelphia, PA.

Dr. Allen Weinstein, Archivist of the United States, U.S. National Archives & Records Administration, Washington, DC.

Dr. Ralph Ketcham, Professor of History Emeritus, Maxwell School of Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 7, 2008, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on business transformation and financial management at the Department of Defense.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 7, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. in order to hold a closed hearing.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my legislative fellow, Jaithai Upakurnitikaset, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the day.

Mr. President, I also rise in support of this amendment, which I am very proud to be cosponsoring along with the Presiding Officer and Senator Tester. I appreciate also the support of a number of other Members of this body on this bill.

I wish to start by saying I consider myself to be very much a realist when it comes to the intelligence services in the United States and when it comes to the use of classified information. I got my first security clearance when I was 17 years old. I have been involved in the intelligence world all of my life. When I was Secretary of the Navy, I was privileged to have ``black'' security clearances in a number of areas with some highly sensitive information. I understand the complexities of this environment.

I also am very sensitive to the massive instantaneous flow of data that now exists in today's world that makes it essential we have more rapid procedures in place in order to intercept key transmissions. But that also gives us the responsibility to ensure that with this higher volume of communication, we don't allow mistakes and abuse, because that potential also rises.

Simply stated, this amendment is designed to allow our Government on the one hand to aggressively fight terrorism but, on the other, to protect our vital constitutional rights and our system of checks and balances.

This amendment will neither stop nor slow down any of our vital intelligence activities. I wish to reemphasize that. There is nothing in this amendment that will slow down the ability of our intelligence services to do the job they are supposed to do.

The American people have been following this debate. The law is a complex law; we recognize that. But the arguments advanced by many in this Chamber have not focused fully on the broad constitutional issues about which Americans have concerns. We care about keeping our Nation safe from further terrorist attack. But we also must care just as deeply in this body about making sure our Government's surveillance is done in a way that is consistent with our Constitution.

I agree with my colleagues--many of whom sit on the Intelligence or Judiciary Committees--this law needs to be updated for all the reasons I mentioned. I am very proud of our Government's trained professionals who have worked so tirelessly for the last 6\1/2\ years, since 9/11, in their effort to help keep our country safe.

But while the means of electronic communication surveillance have rapidly modernized, the speed and overwhelming volume of those communications still requires us to maintain a balanced Federal system, with proper checks and balances against the improper use of governmental authority. The broader the governmental authority, the greater is our responsibility to ensure this authority is narrowly and properly applied.

The watchwords of this debate, from our perspective, are: Safety. Security. Fighting terrorism. But also oversight--oversight of the executive branch, proper checks and balances. Those watchwords should guide us.

The Senator from Wisconsin has completed an exhaustive explanation of the nuts and bolts of this amendment. The Senator from Montana has added to that. I will not belabor their explanations of those finer points. But I emphasize our amendment will do what the American people have been demanding: restore a proper system of checks and balances in our Government's surveillance program. Every Member of this body--and every American, no matter which political party or persuasion--supports the fundamental bedrock concept of checks and balances, concepts we have captured in this amendment's provisions.

As I mentioned, this amendment allows our Government to fully and effectively monitor communications in order to keep us safe from terrorist attack, in every conceivable way. It permits our Government to acquire any foreign-to-foreign communications. It permits our Government to acquire any communications of suspected terrorists into or out of the United States. It permits our Government to acquire any communication where there is reason to believe the acquisition is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm. And it permits our Government to acquire any communications for law enforcement purposes if the communication is evidence that a crime has been, is being or is about to be committed.

Simply stated, the underlying bill in this amendment bestows on our Government the essential tools to keep America safe.

On top of that, for the first time, this amendment would erect a system of oversight and accountability for communications that do not fall into the broad categories I have described.

What types of communications? They are communications that have one end in the United States and generally involve innocent Americans who are not targeted as suspected terrorists, as the Senator from Wisconsin so aptly described. In other words, it could be anyone; it could be you, it could be me. For those of us who have no ties to terrorism, an updated FISA law should and must provide proper protections.

As the Senator from Wisconsin described in his remarks, under this amendment, when the Government realizes it has acquired a communication with one end of the United States, the Government must segregate that specific communication in a separate database. For example, this could take the form of a telephone call or an e-mail.

To emphasize, so there is no misunderstanding: Even after segregating these communications, the Government can have full access to them; but the Government cannot, and should not, have unfettered access to communications of innocent Americans.

This amendment is quite simple. The inspectors general for the Department of Defense and Department of Justice would be given access to sequestered communications. These sequestered communications will allow the inspectors general to see specifically which Americans the Government surveilled or which specific communications were diverted into Government hands for possible surveillance.

Using this information, the inspectors general would be required to conduct audits of the implementation of the sequestration system and determine the extent of the surveillance. I note the inspectors general would employ staffs with appropriate security clearances. And at least once per year, they must report their findings to the Senate and House Committees on the Judiciary and Intelligence.

I believe we need this amendment for many reasons. For almost 7 years, the executive branch's surveillance program has operated in almost total secrecy, often above the law and the Constitution, and often above any review by Congress or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. For almost 7 years, only the executive branch, and perhaps a few isolated employees of telecommunications companies, have known which Americans were being surveilled. This is unacceptable in a constitutional system, whose Founding Fathers rejected the notion of an executive branch with absolute, unchecked authority. In fact, Congress rejected the notion of unchecked executive authority when it originally passed FISA, after the Watergate scandal.

There are many arguments that may be leveled against this amendment. I believe they hold no water. Some of them simply employ fear tactics to cloud the issues of constitutional propriety.

First, some may contend the underlying bill already greatly expands the authority of the FISA Court. But the problem is the pending bill requires

only a review of general surveillance processes. Administrations can, and have, abused processes. A truly robust system of checks and balances demands accountability and oversight over the specific communications obtained by the Government.

This oversight is all the more critical because, for almost 7 years now, the administration may have enjoyed completely unrestrained access to the communications of virtually every American.

Do we know this to be the case? I cannot be sure. One reason I cannot be sure is I have been denied access to review the documents that may answer these questions, even about the process. A month ago, our majority leader wrote to the Director of National Intelligence, asking that all Senators be given access to the documents surrounding the telecommunications companies' involvement in the administration's surveillance program. To this date, that request has been denied.

The denial of this request is one more reason the Senate must bring true accountability to our Nation's intelligence-gathering process. If we do not ask the tough questions and demand true oversight, how will we ever know the extent of Government surveillance or how many innocent Americans have been listened to?

Second, some will argue a process of sequestering communications will be far too cumbersome and, as the Senator from Wisconsin pointed out, this is simply untrue.

Under current law, the Government already labels the surveillance communications it collects.

Additionally, members of the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees tell me that the segregation of these communications can be easily accomplished. Finally, if our intelligence community needs additional personnel or resources to accomplish this requirement, then the Congress should promptly provide the necessary funds. Compliance with the U.S. Constitution is not a matter of option; it is mandatory.

Third, some may contend that this amendment is a partisan ploy designed to embarrass the intelligence community and the administration.

Again, this is simply untrue. I would make the same arguments if the current President belonged to my party. This amendment is not rooted in partisanship. Rather, it attempts to protect the constitutional rights of all innocent Americans.

Moreover, I recognize the tremendous work and sacrifices made by the professionals in our intelligence community, as they aim to keep our homeland safe from attack. But only through a robust system of checks and balances can we ensure the good name of our intelligence professionals and the work that they do.

In sum, I ask my colleagues to join in supporting this amendment. It is time to lay aside our differences and do what is right, time for the Congress to aggressively and responsibly assert its oversight responsibilities.

I am reminded today of a famous quote from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Cardozo. Analyzing our constitutional system of checks and balances, in 1935 Justice Cardozo wrote that executive branch ``discretion is not unconfined and vagrant. It is canalized within banks that keep it from overflowing.''

I urge my colleagues to recognize the importance of this amendment in keeping our Nation safe while also restoring an appropriate system of checks and balances to the FISA surveillance process.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to raise two issues briefly to the Members of our body today.

The first is, if we look back at the State of the Union speech last night, the President, toward the end of his speech, talked about those who have been serving since 9/11--the same individuals my colleague from Oklahoma has been talking about for the last 35 minutes. The President said, at one point:

We must keep faith with all who have risked life and limb

so that we might live in freedom and peace. Over the past 7

years, we have increased funding for veterans by more than 95

percent. As we increase funding, we must also reform our

veterans system to meet the needs of a new war and a new

generation.

Unfortunately, what the President did not speak about in his remarks last night was probably the most important benefit we can be offering to people who have served our country since 9/11; and that is, a GI bill that would give them the same sort of educational benefits as those who served during World War II.

We have heard so many people on this floor and in the administration, in their speeches, talk about how this is the next greatest generation. We hear people lionizing the service they have given since 9/11, and I am one of those who is a great admirer of those young men and women who have stepped forward and served since then. But when they leave the military, they have an educational package that was designed in peacetime as a recruitment incentive in the 1980s and does not allow them to move forward toward truly a first-class future.

Here are a couple of examples for you:

When people came back from World War II--those veterans--8 million of them were able to take advantage of a GI bill that paid all their tuition, bought their books, and gave them a monthly stipend to the school of their choice.

For instance, Senator Lautenberg, who is a cosponsor of my GI bill legislation, S. 22, was able to go to Columbia on a full boat. Today, that would

cost $46,874 a year. Our average veteran coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan is able to receive about $6,000 a year under this Montgomery GI bill that is in place. That is about 12.8 percent of what it would take for our veterans today to be able to go to Columbia.

Senator Warner, my senior colleague from Virginia, was able to take advantage of two GI bills. He was able to go to Washington and Lee University for his undergraduate degree, and then he was able to go to the University of Virginia Law School--full boat. Today, the Montgomery GI bill would pay about 14 percent of what it would take to go to the Washington and Lee University, and about 13 percent of what it would take to go to the UVA Law School.

I emphasize that I am standing here as a full beneficiary of Uncle Sam. After I was wounded in Vietnam and left the Marine Corps, I was able to go to Georgetown Law School, with my tuition paid for, my books bought, and a monthly stipend. Today's Montgomery GI bill would pay about 11.6 percent of that.

I think it is time for all of us in the political process, who like to use the words of praise--rightfully earned by the people on these battlefields--to talk the talk and then walk the walk. Let's get them a GI bill that truly allows them a first-class future. We have a majority--an overwhelming majority--of my Senate colleagues on the Democratic side who are cosponsors of this legislation. I am truly hopeful people on the other side of the aisle will understand this is not a political measure; it is a measure of respect, and it is an earned benefit.

We are giving this year $18.2 billion worth of educational grants to people in this country purely based on their economic status. Certainly we can afford to pay for a meaningful GI bill for these young men and women who have been serving since 9/11.

The senior Senator from Alaska mentioned, during the Christmas break, that we are spending approximately $15 billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan. We could fund this GI bill for 1 week of what it would cost for us to run the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unlike a lot of other comparisons that are made on this floor, this is a direct comparison because a GI bill is a cost of war.

I urge my colleagues to get behind it. Let's get this done early in this session before we go into the political season, and get these young men and women the benefits they not only deserve but they have earned.

Mr. President, the second issue I wish to mention today regards the National Defense Authorization Act, which the President signed into law yesterday. In that act was a commission on wartime contracting, which Senator McCaskill and I jointly introduced last year and were able to get embodied in the National Defense Authorization Act.

This is a very important piece of legislation. It will put into place an independent, bipartisan commission that has a 2-year sunset date on it--jointly picked, jointly selected by Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and in the House and from the administration--a commission filled with experts, not Senators sitting around or political people sitting around, to examine the wartime contracting that has taken place since our invasion of Iraq, particularly, also looking at Afghanistan, and trying to bring accountability to the broad range of fraud, waste, and abuse that we all know has occurred during that period.

Now, to my surprise, when the President signed this legislation yesterday, he issued a signing statement along with it saying this, with respect to this wartime contracting commission, that:

This wartime contracting commission purports to impose

requirements that could inhibit the President's ability to

carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that

the laws be faithfully executed to protect national security,

to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his

authority as Commander in Chief.

He goes on to say that:

The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a

manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the

President.

In other words, the President of the United States, who has been in charge of the conduct of this war, and whose administration has been in charge of executing these contracts--supervising them, making sure that they meet the requirements of fairness in the law, is now saying that he believes a legislative body can enact a law that he can choose to ignore basically because he says it would interfere with his responsibility as Commander in Chief to supervise a war. I am totally at a loss. I am totally amazed to see this kind of language as it respects this legislation.

The Commission was put into place with broad bipartisan support and bicameral support by both the House and the Senate, the idea being to study systemic problems--the same sorts of things this President, I would think, would want to root out. Its historic precedent comes from the Truman Committee that took place during World War II, when then- Senator Harry Truman wanted to look at wartime fraud, waste, and abuse so we could get a proper handle on the Federal spending that was going into mobilization and into the projects that were being put on line during World War II. We certainly didn't see President Franklin Roosevelt trying to say the Truman Committee's work was going to interfere with his ability to conduct World War II. To the contrary, the President, during that war, saw this was the type of thing he needed in order to bring the right sort of supervision and the right sort of accountability that might eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse.

So we don't quite know what the administration intends with this sort of language, but I want all my colleagues to be aware of it and to be aware that it potentially is an impingement on the rights of the legislative body, in effect saying the President has the authority to ignore a law that has now passed, a law he has now signed.

So we are going to go forward with this Commission. We are going to work with the administration, we hope, to set it up. We are going to move as rapidly as we can because the clock is ticking in terms of statute of limitations on some of the charges that might be filed. I hope the people of this country understand we want to do this for the good of the American people; that we have a responsibility to make sure the Nation's purse strings have been properly taken care of and that we are acting as the stewards of America's taxpayers.

Again, if someone in the administration would like to explain to us what their constitutional issue is with a piece of legislation the President has signed, we would be happy to hear that. In the meantime, we are moving forward with this Commission. It is vitally important to accountability in the Government. I am very proud to have been a sponsor of it, and we are marching forward.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 29, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, in order to hear testimony regarding the nomination of Douglas H. Shulman to be Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 29, 2008, at 4 p.m. in order to hold a working coffee with Stephen Smith, Foreign Minister of Australia.

Madam President, the Senate is in the midst of an important debate to extend and improve health care to our Nation's federally recognized Indian tribes. I support the Indian Health Care Improvement Act and I commend all those, including the distinguished chairman, Senator Dorgan, for their work on it.

As we work to extend health care to more Native Americans, some of our oldest and most historically significant Indian tribes will be left outside the process, ineligible to participate in either the health care services or other programs authorized by the Federal Government.

I bring to your attention my strong support of a bill passed last year by the

U.S. House of Representatives, which would grant Federal recognition to six Native American tribes from the Commonwealth of Virginia. That bill is the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act, H.R. 1294.

Once the Senate passes that bill and the President signs it into law, these six federally recognized tribes would become eligible for the benefits conferred under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, which the Senate currently is debating. I hope that the Senate will pass the Indian Health Care Improvement Act this week. Just as importantly, I hope that during this session of Congress, the Senate will pass the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act, thereby bestowing Federal benefits to these six tribes that have waited over 15 years for recognition.

The six tribes affected by the Federal Recognition Act are (1) the Chickahominy Tribe; (2) the Chickahominy Indian Tribe--Eastern Division; (3) the Upper Mattaponi Tribe; (4) the Rappahannock Tribe, Inc.; (5) the Monacan Indian Nation; and (6) the Nansemond Indian Tribe.

All six tribes included in the Federal Recognition Act have attempted to gain formal recognition through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA. A lack of resources, coupled with unclear agency guidelines, have contributed to a backlog that currently exists at the BIA. Some applications for recognition can take up to 20 years.

Virginia's history and policies create barriers for Virginia's Native American Tribes to meet the BIA criteria for Federal recognition. Many Western tribes experienced Government neglect during the 20th century, but Virginia's story is different. Virginia's tribes were specifically targeted by unique policies.

Virginia was the first State to pass antimiscegenation laws in 1691, which were not eliminated until 1967.

Virginia's Bureau of Vital Statistics went so far as changing race records on many birth, death and marriage certificates. The elimination of racial identity records had a harmful impact on Virginia's tribes in the late 1990s, when they began seeking Federal recognition.

Moreover, many Virginia counties suffered tremendous loss of their early records during the intense military activity that occurred during the Civil War.

After meeting with leaders of Virginia's Indian tribes and months of thorough investigation of the facts, I concluded that legislative action is needed for recognition of Virginia's tribes. Congressional hearings and reports over the last several Congresses demonstrate the ancestry and status of these tribes. I have come to the conclusion that this recognition is justified based on principles of dignity and fairness. I have spent several months examining this issue in great detail, including the rich history and culture of Virginia's tribes. My staff and I asked a number of tough questions, and great care and deliberation were put into arriving at this conclusion.

Last year, we celebrated the 400th anniversary of Jamestown America's first colony. After 400 years since the founding of Jamestown, these six tribes deserve to join our Nation's other 562 federally recognized tribes.

As I mentioned, the House overwhelming passed the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act, with bipartisan support. Virginia Governor Tim Kaine and the Virginia legislature support Federal recognition for these tribes. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate, especially those on the Indian Affairs Committee, to push for passage of the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act.

At a time when we are debating how to effectively promote Indian health care, it is important that we grant these six Virginia tribes the access to these essential Federal health programs.

Will the Senator yield?

If I may, this Senator came to the floor on other business, but I followed the Senator's comments with some fascination and gratitude, quite frankly. I admire the Senator for coming down here week after week and addressing issues that in many cases are conceptual issues that don't usually get the time for consideration in

this body. One of the events that came to my mind when the Senator was talking about Franklin Roosevelt's administration and his willingness to regulate banks--and we have seen such a push of late against any sort of Government regulation--was when Andrew Jackson vetoed the charter for the second national bank, which was an act that Historian Vernon Louis Parrington termed ``the most courageous political act in American history.'' Andrew Jackson did it for exactly the same reasons as the Senator from North Dakota is stating. What Andrew Jackson said at that time was that if the charter of the second national bank came into place, it would have created and perpetuated an unbridled aristocracy in the United States. It would have allowed the continuation of aristocracy in a nation that was supposed to be a democracy.

I particularly associate myself with the remarks of the Senator when it comes to the verticalization of our communications industry. You can look back in history. Whenever authoritarianism takes hold of a nation, they do it through three entities. They take out the ability of people to worship. They attempt to decimate the family, and they go after the ability of people to speak freely. In some cases, this verticalization, it can be argued, is simply economic. But certainly in a lot of areas, when you have this verticalization of ownership from film to TV to local TV stations to newspapers, it can affect people's access to information. It can affect people's ability to make reasoned judgments.

I wanted to interrupt the Senator for a few minutes to state my appreciation for his coming to the floor week after week and making these points. I will be very strongly desirous of working with him on both of those issues.

Mr. President, I do not want to take up too much time on the floor. All the salient points have been made, and I know the Senate is anxious to vote.

First of all, I echo the comments about the majority leader. He has to stand up and take a lot of hits on behalf of all of us. I know of no one who is more highly and sincerely motivated.

It has been a pleasure to work with the chairman, Senator Warner, and Senator McCain on the Armed Services Committee. I am also on the Veterans' Committee. We were able to work with both committees on the Wounded Warrior project.

I would like, very briefly, to give a special thanks to Senator Warner, my senior Senator from Virginia, for having stepped forward on this wartime contracts commission and brought it to fruition after Senator McCaskill and I had spent a lot of time working on it and were in a situation where we didn't know if it actually was going to get into the bill. It was Senator Warner stepping forward and ironing out a few of these provisions and leading the Republican side that made that possible.

Obviously, I am very strongly in support of the bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am honored to speak on behalf of a bill I have cosponsored with my distinguished colleague, the senior senator from Virginia.

It is altogether appropriate that the new Federal courthouse in Richmond, our Commonwealth's capital and a city that played a pivotal role in our Nation's civil rights debate, be named in honor of two of Virginia's most distinguished citizens, Judge Spottswood Robinson, III, and Judge Robert Merhige, Jr. Both of these men are considered consummate Federal jurists, and both will be remembered as fierce defenders of the Constitution and the rule of law.

Judge Robinson was born in Richmond on July 26, 1916 and passed away at his home in Virginia on October 11, 1998. Judge Robinson attended Virginia Union University and achieved a number of ``firsts.'' He graduated first in his class from Howard University's School of Law. He was the first African-American to be appointed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Also, he was the first African- American to be appointed to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the first African-American to serve as chief justice of that court. Judge Robinson served on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and as dean of Howard University Law School. Of his long and distinguished career, one of his most notable accomplishments was serving as counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and acting as one of the principal attorneys in Brown v. The Board of Education, arguably the most important civil rights case of the twentieth century.

Professor Jack Greenberg of Columbia University Law School, an authority on civil rights law stated, ``[Judge Robinson] was an exceptionally capable lawyer. He was good with judges and juries. He knew the law. He knew some of the esoteric, technical, sort of obscure parts of legal history.'' Considering Judge Robinson's arguments before the Supreme Court, Professor Greenberg said, ``He was very calm and just absolutely brimming with facts and information and legal doctrine.''

Judge Merhige was born February 5, 1919, in New York, and after 31 years on the bench, passed away in Richmond on February 18, 2005. Judge Merhige presided over the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia from 1967 until 1998. Judge Merhige received his law degree from the University of Richmond's T.C. Williams School of Law. In 1972, Judge Merhige courageously ordered the desegregation of dozens of Virginia school districts. Despite numerous threats and receiving 24- hour protection by Federal authorities, Judge Merhige remained faithful to the Constitution and the rule of law. Judge Merhige ordered the University of Virginia to admit women in 1970 and rejected appeals by defendants in the Watergate case.

A friend of many years, Governor Gerald Baliles, once stated Judge Merhige was, ``a man of civility and courage, a gentle but vibrant force of the legal realm. . . . [Judge Merhige] was a master of wit and could puncture the pomposity of lawyers as well as engage in acts of self-deprecation.''

These two men were bold enough to recognize and fight to ensure that the rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution are enjoyed by everyone, and not just the privileged or members of a certain race, religion, or socio-economic group.

The names of Judge Robinson and Judge Merhige will be etched on the walls of this courthouse. I am committed to ensuring that their legacy of equality and fundamental fairness persists in the hearts of all Virginians.

Mr. President, I am honored to speak on behalf of a bill I have cosponsored with my distinguished colleague, the senior senator from Virginia.

It is altogether appropriate that the new Federal courthouse in Richmond, our Commonwealth's capital and a city that played a pivotal role in our Nation's civil rights debate, be named in honor of two of Virginia's most distinguished citizens, Judge Spottswood Robinson, III, and Judge Robert Merhige, Jr. Both of these men are considered consummate Federal jurists, and both will be remembered as fierce defenders of the Constitution and the rule of law.

Judge Robinson was born in Richmond on July 26, 1916 and passed away at his home in Virginia on October 11, 1998. Judge Robinson attended Virginia Union University and achieved a number of ``firsts.'' He graduated first in his class from Howard University's School of Law. He was the first African-American to be appointed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Also, he was the first African- American to be appointed to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the first African-American to serve as chief justice of that court. Judge Robinson served on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and as dean of Howard University Law School. Of his long and distinguished career, one of his most notable accomplishments was serving as counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and acting as one of the principal attorneys in Brown v. The Board of Education, arguably the most important civil rights case of the twentieth century.

Professor Jack Greenberg of Columbia University Law School, an authority on civil rights law stated, ``[Judge Robinson] was an exceptionally capable lawyer. He was good with judges and juries. He knew the law. He knew some of the esoteric, technical, sort of obscure parts of legal history.'' Considering Judge Robinson's arguments before the Supreme Court, Professor Greenberg said, ``He was very calm and just absolutely brimming with facts and information and legal doctrine.''

Judge Merhige was born February 5, 1919, in New York, and after 31 years on the bench, passed away in Richmond on February 18, 2005. Judge Merhige presided over the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia from 1967 until 1998. Judge Merhige received his law degree from the University of Richmond's T.C. Williams School of Law. In 1972, Judge Merhige courageously ordered the desegregation of dozens of Virginia school districts. Despite numerous threats and receiving 24- hour protection by Federal authorities, Judge Merhige remained faithful to the Constitution and the rule of law. Judge Merhige ordered the University of Virginia to admit women in 1970 and rejected appeals by defendants in the Watergate case.

A friend of many years, Governor Gerald Baliles, once stated Judge Merhige was, ``a man of civility and courage, a gentle but vibrant force of the legal realm. . . . [Judge Merhige] was a master of wit and could puncture the pomposity of lawyers as well as engage in acts of self-deprecation.''

These two men were bold enough to recognize and fight to ensure that the rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution are enjoyed by everyone, and not just the privileged or members of a certain race, religion, or socio-economic group.

The names of Judge Robinson and Judge Merhige will be etched on the walls of this courthouse. I am committed to ensuring that their legacy of equality and fundamental fairness persists in the hearts of all Virginians.