Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to a report released today by a bipartisan panel of Asia specialists cochaired by Richard L. Armitage and Joseph Nye. The report, ``The U.S.-Japan Alliance: Getting Asia Right Through 2020,'' highlights major trends in Asia and provides the panel's comprehensive analysis with security and economic policy recommendations, with specific reference to our bilateral relations with Japan.

Many Senators will recall that Ambassador Armitage and Dr. Nye issued a report in October 2000 titled ``The United States and Japan: Advancing Toward a Mature Partnership.'' This landmark document, which subsequently became known as the Armitage Report, aimed at strengthening the U.S.-Japan relationship in the areas of politics, security, Okinawa, intelligence, economics and diplomacy. This new report, which is already being called ``Armitage II,'' continues to emphasize the importance of the alliance but goes a step further, by addressing the ways in which the alliance can work to positively influence future affairs in Asia.

The report, which is available on the CSIS Web site at: http:// www.csis.org/component/option,com--csis--pubs/task,view /id,3729/typ, is not a political document. It reflects the views of the study group members only. Nevertheless, it represents a serious attempt to outline a vision that would achieve a balance of power in Asia through 2020 that favors American interests and values and promotes regional stability.

I encourage all Senators and their staffs to examine this serious and significant new report.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to fix a serious problem that has recently come to light with respect to the administration of the so-called Death Gratuity. The legislation is designed to ensure that a service member can designate to whom a death gratuity benefit is awarded.

Today's Washington Post includes an informative yet troubling article describing the plight of the mother of Petty Officer Second Class Jaime S. Jaenke, U. S. Navy, who died in Iraq in June 2006 as a result of an IED attack. Petty Officer Jaenke was a member of the Navy Reserve and a medic assigned to a Seabee Construction Battalion. She left behind a young daughter, Kayla, who is in the care of Kayla's grandmother, Susan Jaenke.

Regrettably, because of the manner in which death benefits are administered, a hardship situation has been created for Mrs. Jaenke. The article spells out that while the insurance proceeds have been set aside by the State court for the benefit of Kayla, they have not yet been made available. So in the meantime her grandmother is left trying to make ends meet because she is not allowed to receive the gratuity benefit that her daughter thought she would be providing, should the service member's unfortunate death occur.

The article describes a very difficult situation for the person on who Petty Officer Jaenke depended. The financial difficulties Mrs. Jaenke is experiencing is due in part by confusion about how the death gratuity benefit--a sum of $100,000--is being administered under law.

Under current law, the recipient of the $100,000 is dictated by the statute. It provides that a benefit is first awarded to an existing spouse. If there is no spouse, it then is provided to the children, and so on. It's a scheme that was set up to permit speedy resolution of what used to be a very modest benefit. In today's world, however, with the complex needs of service members, it does not comport with the realities of many of our service members and their families. It needs to be changed.

The legislation I am introducing would replace the statutory order of beneficiaries with provisions identical to that used to select beneficiaries under the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance--SGLI. The bill would give service members the power to select precisely who will receive the $100,00 death gratuity. It would require the Secretary of Defense to, no later than April 1, 2007, to prepare regulations and create election forms that will enable service members to designate who will receive this benefit.

I hope we can move this legislation quickly and ensure that the intentions of our service members regarding the well being of their children and families can be carried out. We owe at least that much to those who are giving their lives for our nation.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to fix a serious problem that has recently come to light with respect to the administration of the so-called Death Gratuity. The legislation is designed to ensure that a service member can designate to whom a death gratuity benefit is awarded.

Today's Washington Post includes an informative yet troubling article describing the plight of the mother of Petty Officer Second Class Jaime S. Jaenke, U. S. Navy, who died in Iraq in June 2006 as a result of an IED attack. Petty Officer Jaenke was a member of the Navy Reserve and a medic assigned to a Seabee Construction Battalion. She left behind a young daughter, Kayla, who is in the care of Kayla's grandmother, Susan Jaenke.

Regrettably, because of the manner in which death benefits are administered, a hardship situation has been created for Mrs. Jaenke. The article spells out that while the insurance proceeds have been set aside by the State court for the benefit of Kayla, they have not yet been made available. So in the meantime her grandmother is left trying to make ends meet because she is not allowed to receive the gratuity benefit that her daughter thought she would be providing, should the service member's unfortunate death occur.

The article describes a very difficult situation for the person on who Petty Officer Jaenke depended. The financial difficulties Mrs. Jaenke is experiencing is due in part by confusion about how the death gratuity benefit--a sum of $100,000--is being administered under law.

Under current law, the recipient of the $100,000 is dictated by the statute. It provides that a benefit is first awarded to an existing spouse. If there is no spouse, it then is provided to the children, and so on. It's a scheme that was set up to permit speedy resolution of what used to be a very modest benefit. In today's world, however, with the complex needs of service members, it does not comport with the realities of many of our service members and their families. It needs to be changed.

The legislation I am introducing would replace the statutory order of beneficiaries with provisions identical to that used to select beneficiaries under the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance--SGLI. The bill would give service members the power to select precisely who will receive the $100,00 death gratuity. It would require the Secretary of Defense to, no later than April 1, 2007, to prepare regulations and create election forms that will enable service members to designate who will receive this benefit.

I hope we can move this legislation quickly and ensure that the intentions of our service members regarding the well being of their children and families can be carried out. We owe at least that much to those who are giving their lives for our nation.

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

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, is the minority leader aware of the content of the measure that is proposed by myself, Senator Lieberman, Senator Graham, and others? What it is, is a proposal to set up benchmarks but also to support the surge or the change in strategy.

Can the Republican leader explain to me why it is we shouldn't have a proposal that opposes the surge, with a vote on that, and a proposal that supports it and a vote on that?

I have only been around here 20 years, not nearly as long as Senator Byrd has, whom Senator McConnell referred to, but aren't we allowed to have competing resolutions to debate, with time agreements, such as the minority leader proposed? Why in the world would we not agree to a resolution that would be in opposition to the resolution the majority leader insists on voting on by itself? I have never seen the Senate work this way. I have never seen the Senate only allow one proposal to be debated and voted on. We have a proposal that we think deserves debate and votes.

I ask the Senator from Kentucky, who has been here longer than I have been, if he has ever seen anything quite like this on a major, compelling, overwhelming issue before the American people?

Madam President, what is the pending business?

I ask for the regular order and I ask to be recognized.

Madam President, I come to the Senate to comment on H.J. Res. 20, making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2007 which, as I understand, is the pending business before the Senate.

I think most of us agree that funding the Federal Government should be done through the regular order, not through a patchwork of continuing resolutions. The reality is that all but two Federal agencies are being funded through a measure to which no Member is being permitted to offer, debate or vote on a single amendment. That is wrong. We are not the House of Representatives. We are not the other body, I say to my colleagues. We are the Senate, a deliberative body. I hope the Senate leadership on both sides will work to ensure we do not repeat this fate.

I have been in this body for a little over 20 years. I have watched, over those 20 years, an increasing use of parliamentary procedures--the so-called filling up the tree and motions for cloture filed at the same time the legislation is before the Senate increase to an ever- accelerating process.

I was very disturbed about that process being exercised when my side of the aisle was in the leadership, and I am even more concerned as I watch the new majority conduct business in the Senate. I could submit for the record the fact of literally every measure before the Senate that at the same time a cloture motion is proposed, the tree is filled.

The Senate is here to debate and amend. The other body, understandably, has different rules. Given the mechanisms that are being put in place by the majority side, what is the difference? It seems to me that 20 years ago--and I would ask my friend from Virginia, who has been here considerably longer than I have--the routine was a piece of legislation would be before the Senate, there would be amendments proposed, debated, with second-degree amendments, if necessary. And the process was something where literally every Member of the Senate, if a Member so chose, could come to the floor and debate and amend and improve the legislation, if that was a Member's desire.

Where are we now? We file cloture. We vote on cloture. We stand around for 30 hours or so. And then we vote up or down. This is a very dangerous process we are going through. So now we are examining a bill which funds all but two Federal agencies in a measure which no Member is permitted to offer, debate or vote on a single amendment. That is not why I came here. That is not why. We are sent here--we are sent here--to express the views and ambitions and hopes and dreams of our constituents.

I have been in discussion with several other Members about how this trend continues to accelerate and literally deprive this institution from being described as not the greatest deliberative body in the world but a deliberative body.

And I say to the leadership, please sit down and work these things out. Have a reasonable number of amendments. Have debate. Agree to time agreements. Agree to time agreements. I had several amendments to this bill for which I would have agreed to an hour time agreement, which would have been plenty of time to debate the amendments and render the Senate's judgment, which I would have respected whether it succeeded or failed.

Now, there are many of us who are very unhappy because we think we could have improved this legislation, which covers all but two--two-- Federal agencies of the entire Federal Government. And we are going to consider an up-or-down vote on it. That is not right. It is not fair to the American people. And it is not fair to the hallowed traditions of this institution.

I do not know exactly what to do about it. But there are some of us who

are looking for ways, perhaps, to express our dissatisfaction on this issue. In all deference to my dear friend from Virginia, all I asked for on this issue of the ``surge'' or ``change in strategy'' in Iraq was 2 hours of debate on our amendment, with a time agreement and a vote. I do not think that is a lot to ask. I do not think that is a great deal. I do not think that is a huge request. The two leaders sitting down together could have--and, by the way, I know my friend from Virginia supported that. I am not in any way denigrating----

Yes.

I thank my friend from Virginia. And let the record be clear, the Senator from Virginia supported the proposition that we would consider more than one amendment.

Now, I am absolutely convinced--I hate to keep going on this aspect of it because I wish to discuss the continuing appropriations bill before us--but we could have sat down and said: OK, we will have four amendments, a certain amount of time on each amendment for debate. Time agreements would have been entered into, and then everybody could have had their say or certainly the majority of the Senate would have agreed to that.

Instead, unfortunately, we ended up without addressing the issue in a comprehensive fashion, in fact at all, because of the process that went through. But equally as important--equally as important--I say to my friend from Virginia--and I would ask him, when he first came here, would he have ever seen a situation where the entire funding of the Federal Government was in a measure before this body without a single amendment being allowed to it?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a brief colloquy with the Senator from Virginia.

For the record, you might want to say how many years you have been here.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that without losing the floor, my friend from Nebraska be recognized for 3 minutes to make a statement on the issue which has been raised by the Senator from Virginia, which I heartily disagree with.

Madam President, I have to insist on the regular order.

I thank my colleagues.

Madam President, I understand at 4:15 we are turning to a judge. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

We have time.

I thank the Chair. I was misinformed.

Madam President, I will not go on, on this issue, but I believe we need to, as a body, sit down and try to fix this unfortunate situation where we are not allowing amendments nor sufficient examination of legislation before the body.

Madam President, there is one silver lining to the measure pending before us. It is largely free of wasteful earmarking and porkbarrel spending. This is the first time during my years in Congress I have witnessed such an occurrence. Compare this to the last fiscal year, 2006. According to data compiled by the Congressional Research Service, the appropriations bills and accompanying reports for the last fiscal year included $64 billion in earmarks--the largest earmarked funding in history.

So again, this CR, which does not have an accompanying report where historically 95 percent of earmarks are included, is a welcomed change. I can only urge the Appropriations Committee to let this be a guide for future appropriations measures when it comes to earmarks: Do not include them and do not waste the taxpayers' dollars.

I was pleased to join with several of my colleagues in writing the President last week to urge his leadership on this issue and ensure his administration understands clearly and fully that it is under absolutely no obligation to continue to fund earmarks that were included in past committee reports or urged by Members of Congress or their staff. As stated by the President in his State of the Union Address last month, when it comes to earmarking, ``The time has come to end this practice.'' Now it is up to the administration to abide by the President's directive, and I assure you, we will be watching.

Also, last week, Senator Coburn and I received a response from the Department of Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman in response to our letter of the previous week stating our serious concerns about reports that the Department may be planning ``business as usual'' and would fund conference report earmarks.

Fortunately, the Secretary has clarified his Department's position and will only fund programs or activities that, in his words, are ``meritorious and effective'' and ``support and advance the Department's missions and objectives . . . ''

I ask unanimous consent that copies of our correspondence with the Secretary be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. President, may I inquire, how much time do I have again?

I thank the Chair.

I ask the clerk to tell me when I have consumed 8 minutes.

I come again this morning to the not particularly pleasant task of opposing the nomination of General Casey to be Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army. I preface my remarks, again, with my appreciation for honorable service to the country, his family, and the sacrifices they have made for many years. This isn't a question of character because his character is outstanding; it is a question of judgment.

I will try to put this in context, why I am in opposition. For several years, I and a number of others have bemoaned and complained and criticized and been saddened as we have watched this train wreck in Iraq. Not long after the initial invasion, I came back from a visit to Iraq and visited with the then-Secretary of Defense, who bears great responsibility for this debacle, and history will judge him very badly for his performance as Secretary of Defense. I told him how it was that we were not going to win, we were not going to succeed, that we didn't have enough troops over there, that Anbar Province was going to erupt-- basically all the things many of us saw were going to transpire. General Casey, for 2\1/2\ years up until recently, would come back to the Congress and say that things were going well. I quoted many quotes yesterday, from time to time, including in 2005, saying we could start withdrawing by 2006 and on and on and on, completely divorced from reality on the ground, as was the Secretary of Defense.

I will state at the beginning that Presidents are responsible, but Presidents also rely on the advice and counsel of their military leaders. That is a normal thing and has happened in every conflict.

President Bush said time and time again: I have said to the American people, as Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. But I have also said our commanders on the ground will make that decision. We will talk to General Casey. On and on. The Army is getting on its feet. We have turned over a lot of territory to the Army. They are good fighters. I have spent a great deal of time with General Abizaid and General Casey. They are in Washington. They are generals who will be happy to tell me the way it is, not the way they think I would like to it be.

Time after time, it has been clear that the President of the United States, as appropriate, has been relying on the advice and counsel of commanders in the field who did not give him appropriate information or recommendations. We are all responsible. In the military, you are responsible for the decisions you make on the battlefield, particularly when they cost our most valuable and important asset--American blood.

In his opening statement at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on September 29, General Casey said: ``The capacity of Iraqi security forces has increased quantitatively and qualitatively over the past year'' and ``we have also developed with the Iraqis a readiness reporting system, not unlike the one we have in place for our own forces. So over the past 18 months we have built enough Iraqi capacity where we can begin talking seriously about transitioning this counterinsurgency mission to them.''

Did he realize at the time that statement was wrong? And when did he tell someone?

At the same hearing, General Casey said:

More coalition is not necessarily better. More and more

capable Iraqi security forces are better. Increased coalition

presence speeds the notion of occupation. It contributes to

the dependency of Iraqi security forces on the coalition. It

extends the amount of time it will take for Iraqi security

forces to become self-reliant and exposes more coalition

forces to attacks at a time when Iraqi security forces are

increasingly available and increasingly capable.

There has been no sign of that. Why did it take 15 months for General Casey to change that assessment and then not even agree with the new strategy of five additional brigades, which most of us pray is enough and most of us believe is a direct contravention to the Powell doctrine, which is, use overwhelming force in order to gain military victory?

President Bush said General Casey will make decisions as to how many troops we have there. Why did it take 2\1/2\ years? Why did it have to take 2\1/2\ years of steady degradation for General Casey to figure out we didn't have enough troops there, and the situation is worsening in Iraq.

The NIE that came out yesterday should frighten anyone, any American,

because of the stark depiction in the NIE--the public document--that states that the situation is grave and deteriorating in Iraq, which is also the conclusion of the Iraq Study Group, whether you happen to agree with their recommendations or not.

Mr. President, responsibility is one of the first things that is taught at our service academies. We are responsible for our decisions. When the Missouri runs aground, we relieve the captain. When four sailors are washed overboard, we relieve the captain. Now we are rewarding failure as we did during the Vietnam war when we named General Westmoreland as Chief of Staff of the Army after a failed search and destroy. There are eerie parallels here. General Westmoreland employed the search and destroy strategy which is counter to any counterinsurgency strategy. That kind of strategy is clear, hold, and build. That is what General Petraeus is trying to do now. That is not what has been done in the past under General Casey.

So what are we doing? We are promoting a general who has pursued a failed policy, advocated it to the President, whom he is responsible to advise, and he is advocating it to the Congress of the United States despite the overwhelming view by many of us that it was not a successful strategy. Still, today, where he will be in place if he is confirmed by the Senate, he will be responsible for the operation, training, and doctrine that will be employed in Iraq, and he still, to this day, as far as I know, from the hearing of a short time ago, believes--and I could give the quote--that we are not failing but we are succeeding. I don't know of anyone who believes that who is in a responsible position in Government.

Mr. President, it is with a bit of regret that I do this. Again, I repeat what I said yesterday. Senator Levin asked him:

I am wondering whether you would agree that what we are

doing in Iraq was maybe a slow failure.

General Casey said:

I don't actually see it as a slow failure. I actually see

it as slow progress.

How could you depict the situation in Baghdad today, with six helicopters being shot down in the last few weeks, with a spike in casualties that has taken place, and the continued level of sectarian violence, as a slow progress?

So I want to tell my friends that people in the military, particularly our young officers, are watching what we do here. We teach them in our service schools, and we teach our noncommissioned officers and junior officers: You are responsible for success or failure. That is why we appoint you as leaders. In this case, this leader, despite his honorable character and dedication to this country, has not led, and his responsibility has not been carried out.

So I hope my colleagues will turn down this nomination and that we will appoint one of the many highly qualified senior military officers we have to fulfill this position.

May I finally say that I am very nervous about this new strategy. I am very doubtful that we have enough troops. I don't know if the Maliki government will be strong enough. But if General Casey is appointed to this position, my confidence will be lowered because it is not appropriate to put someone who does not support wholeheartedly the new strategy in a position where he will be responsible for a great deal of it. To this day, he doesn't admit that this present strategy has failed.

Do I have any time remaining?

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Virginia be allowed 3 minutes to speak on this issue, not to be taken from the time remaining.

Mr. President, I ask further unanimous consent--and I tell my colleagues that I will not seek further unanimous consent after this; I will object to a further unanimous consent request--that an additional 2 minutes be given to the Senator from Alabama to speak on this issue.

Mr. President, let me make it clear, I don't support medals for failure. I don't support promotion to a higher position for failure. I believe that the awards and accolades Senator Levin alluded to that have been provided to those who have committed egregious failures was not only inappropriate, it was absolutely insulting.

I also, though, point out that history will judge many of these people who have been given medals of various types, and already that judgment has been harsh. All of us are more concerned about our place in history than we are medals. History and the American people are already judging the failures and the misleading statements, such as ``stuff happens'' and ``mission accomplished'' and a few ``dead- enders'' and ``last throes'' and all of those statements which have been made over the past 3\1/2\ years which led the American people to believe we were succeeding in Iraq when many of us knew we weren't because we violated a fundamental principle called the Powell doctrine: If you want to win, you go in with overwhelming force.

The reason I am very concerned today, even though we have a very outstanding general in Petraeus, is that I am not sure we have enough troops still.

Throughout our history, military commanders have been held responsible. Abraham Lincoln held General McClellan responsible and fired him. In World War II, those who were in command who were responsible for December 7, 1941, were held responsible. In the Korean war, General MacArthur was held responsible. The fact is that military leaders are held responsible as well as civilian leaders.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the number of times President Bush said that he relied on the judgment of the military commanders. Those military commanders did not exercise good judgment and therefore are responsible for the rosy scenario and the inaccurate depiction of facts on the ground in Iraq as they came before our committee, the Armed Services Committee, and spoke to the President of the United States and the American people.

Mr. President, in 2004, General Casey said:

My view of winning is that we are broadly on track to

accomplishing our objectives . . . with Iraqi security forces

that are capable of maintaining domestic order and denying

Iraq as a safe haven for terror, and I believe we are on

track to get there by December of 2005.

In September of 2005, General Casey said:

We have a strategy and a plan for success in Iraq, and we

are broadly on track in achieving our goals.

Time after time, the American people were told that things were going fine, and they were not.

I wish to emphasize again that I believe General Casey has served this Nation honorably. I think he and his family have made great sacrifices for this country. I have nothing but respect. But to reward failure is going to send a message all around the military that I don't think is a healthy one. I don't support promotion and I don't support medals for failure. I support people being held responsible, and I regret that those who are responsible on the civilian side have not been held more responsible, although, as we speak today, the American people, by their opinions as reflected in the polls, are certainly reflecting their judgment about the performance and responsibility of our civilian leaders.

I hope we can move forward and obtain successes in Iraq under this new strategy. I am not sure right now that General Casey completely supports it, and I don't think that it enhances our chance for succeeding in Iraq. I urge my colleagues to vote against this nomination and select a leader, of which there are many, who is far more capable, in my view, of carrying out the new strategy in Iraq.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time, as I see the majority leader here on the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation that would repeal section 10(f) of Public Law 93-531, commonly known as the ``Bennett Freeze.'' Passage of this legislation would officially mark the end of roughly 40 years of litigation and land-lock between the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe. Congressman Rick Renzi has introduced an identical version today in the House of Representatives.

For decades the Navajo and the Hopi have been engrossed in a bitter dispute over land rights in the Black Mesa area just south of Kayenta, AZ. The conflict extends as far back as 1882 when the boundaries of the Hopi and Navajo reservations were initially defined, resulting in a tragic saga of litigation and damaging Federal Indian policy. By 1966, relations between the tribes became so strained over development and access to sacred religious sites in the disputed area that the Federal Government imposed a construction freeze on the disputed reservation land. The freeze prohibited any additional housing development in the Black Mesa area and restricted repairs on existing dwellings. This injunction became known as the ``Bennett Freeze,'' named after former BIA Commissioner Robert Bennett who imposed the ban.

The Bennett Freeze was intended to be a temporary measure to prevent one tribe taking advantage of another until the land dispute could be settled. Unfortunately, the conflict was nowhere near resolution, and the construction freeze ultimately devastated economic development in northern Arizona for years to come. By some accounts, nearly 8,000 people currently living in the Bennett Freeze area reside in conditions that haven't changed in half a century. While the population of the area has increased 65 percent, generations of families have been forced to live together in homes that have been declared unfit for human habitation. Only 3 percent of the families affected by the Bennett Freeze have electricity. Only 10 percent have running water. Almost none have natural gas.

In September 2005, the Navajo and Hopi peoples' desire to live together in mutual respect prevailed when both tribes approved intergovernmental agreement that resolved all outstanding litigation in the Bennett Freeze area. This landmark agreement also clarifies the boundaries of the Navajo and Hopi reservations in Arizona, and ensures that access to religious sites of both tribes is protected. As such, the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, and the Department of Interior all support congressional legislation to lift the freeze.

The bill I'm introducing today would repeal the Bennett Freeze. The intergovernmental compact approved last year by both tribes, the Department of Interior, and signed by the U.S. District Court for Arizona, marks a new era in Navajo-Hopi relations. Lifting the Bennett Freeze gives us an opportunity to put decades of conflict between the Navajo and Hopi behind us. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation that would repeal section 10(f) of Public Law 93-531, commonly known as the ``Bennett Freeze.'' Passage of this legislation would officially mark the end of roughly 40 years of litigation and land-lock between the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe. Congressman Rick Renzi has introduced an identical version today in the House of Representatives.

For decades the Navajo and the Hopi have been engrossed in a bitter dispute over land rights in the Black Mesa area just south of Kayenta, AZ. The conflict extends as far back as 1882 when the boundaries of the Hopi and Navajo reservations were initially defined, resulting in a tragic saga of litigation and damaging Federal Indian policy. By 1966, relations between the tribes became so strained over development and access to sacred religious sites in the disputed area that the Federal Government imposed a construction freeze on the disputed reservation land. The freeze prohibited any additional housing development in the Black Mesa area and restricted repairs on existing dwellings. This injunction became known as the ``Bennett Freeze,'' named after former BIA Commissioner Robert Bennett who imposed the ban.

The Bennett Freeze was intended to be a temporary measure to prevent one tribe taking advantage of another until the land dispute could be settled. Unfortunately, the conflict was nowhere near resolution, and the construction freeze ultimately devastated economic development in northern Arizona for years to come. By some accounts, nearly 8,000 people currently living in the Bennett Freeze area reside in conditions that haven't changed in half a century. While the population of the area has increased 65 percent, generations of families have been forced to live together in homes that have been declared unfit for human habitation. Only 3 percent of the families affected by the Bennett Freeze have electricity. Only 10 percent have running water. Almost none have natural gas.

In September 2005, the Navajo and Hopi peoples' desire to live together in mutual respect prevailed when both tribes approved intergovernmental agreement that resolved all outstanding litigation in the Bennett Freeze area. This landmark agreement also clarifies the boundaries of the Navajo and Hopi reservations in Arizona, and ensures that access to religious sites of both tribes is protected. As such, the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, and the Department of Interior all support congressional legislation to lift the freeze.

The bill I'm introducing today would repeal the Bennett Freeze. The intergovernmental compact approved last year by both tribes, the Department of Interior, and signed by the U.S. District Court for Arizona, marks a new era in Navajo-Hopi relations. Lifting the Bennett Freeze gives us an opportunity to put decades of conflict between the Navajo and Hopi behind us. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to express opposition to the nomination of General George Casey to be the next Chief of Staff of the Army.

I admire General Casey's patriotism and his long service to our country. I have concluded, based on his role as commander of the multinational forces in Iraq, that I cannot support his nomination.

Let me first make clear that General Casey has had a long and distinguished career in the U.S. Army and is deserving of the utmost respect and gratitude for the contributions he has made to this Nation's defense over his long career. At his nomination hearing on February 1, I stated my appreciation to him and his family for their extraordinary service and personal sacrifice, as well as the support they have provided to the men and women in uniform and their families. I emphasized

then, and I reiterate today, I do not in any way question General Casey's honor, patriotism or service to America, nor do I question his sincere desire to continue serving the Army.

At this critical moment in our history, however, with the obvious-- obvious--lack of success in achieving our goals in Iraq, this nomination should bear unusual weight in our deliberations. All of the Armed Services, and particularly our ground forces, are undergoing difficult changes to adjust to the global war on terror. The next Chief of Staff of the Army will be faced with enormous challenges in matters relating to recruiting, training, and retention of soldiers, the continuing organizing of the Army, and requirements for the procurement of weapon systems. The next Chief of Staff must be able to evaluate ongoing strategy and be able to react with sound advice when unforeseen challenges are encountered. Perhaps most importantly, the next Chief of Staff must be unconstrained in evaluating the past while giving advice for the future.

I have questioned in the past, and question today, a number of the decisions and judgments that General Casey has made over the past 2\1/ 2\ years. During that time, conditions in Iraq have grown remarkably and progressively worse, and the situation now can best be described as dire and deteriorating. I regret that our window of opportunity to reverse momentum may be closing.

The bombing at the Golden Mosque in Samarra last February sparked sectarian violence throughout Iraq and in Baghdad, in particular. Yet in the face of this dramatic change in the Iraqi security environment, our military strategy--and I emphasize military strategy--remained essentially unchanged. Instead of conducting a traditional insurgency campaign, our troops focused on training and equipping Iraqis, hoping, in vain, that they could do the job. After repeated elections and political events demonstrated that the democratic process would not, on its own, bring down the level of violence, our troops did not begin focusing on protecting the population. Instead, the coalition and Iraqi forces launched Operation Together Forward in June 2006. This operation, aimed at securing Baghdad, failed. Yet the coalition launched Operation Together Forward II in August in a very similar fashion. The result, predictably, was a similar failure.

I am not going to go over the many times I complained about a failed strategy. A number of times I asked our leaders, both civilian and military, why they were continuing to pursue this failed strategy. I continued to give speeches denouncing this strategy and predicted we would end up in the dire circumstances we are in today. It is all a matter of responsibility--a matter of responsibility.

General Casey, more than any other individual, has been the architect of U.S. military strategy in Iraq over the last 2 years. During this time, I fear he consistently presented unrealistically rosy, optimistic assessments of the situation in Iraq. For example, in December 2004, General Casey stated at a Pentagon press conference:

My view of winning is that we are broadly on track to

accomplishing our objectives, with Iraqi security forces that

are capable of maintaining domestic order and denying Iraq as

a safe haven for terrorists. And I believe we are on track to

get there by December of 2005.

I repeat that:

I believe we are on track to get there by December of 2005.

Almost a year later, in September of 2005, General Casey repeated:

We have a strategy and a plan for success in Iraq, and we

are broadly on track in achieving our goals.

Last October of 2006, he stated, before the Armed Services Committee, I believe:

The idea that the country is aflame in sectarian violence

is just not right. General Casey said: I do not subscribe to

the civil war idea.

Mr. President, we have hearings to try to get an honest, unvarnished opinion of how our Armed Forces are doing, what their needs are, what their missions are, and of course because we are in a war, what is happening in Iraq. We are not on the ground there. We visit frequently, but we rely to a large degree, obviously, on the judgment and the recommendations and the evaluations of our military leaders. This is the opening statement of GEN George W. Casey before the Armed Services Committee on 23 June of 2005:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman . . .

Remember, this is 23 June 2005.

. . . In the past year, the Iraqis, supported by the

coalition, have established an interim government,

neutralized the Shia insurgency, eliminated terrorist and

insurgent safe havens across Iraq, mobilized their security

forces to confront the insurgency . . .

How could he possibly give that kind of assessment? Senator Levin says, well, we should have put pressure on the Iraqis. Well, maybe we should have put pressure on the Iraqis, but it was pretty obvious to even the most uninitiated that the Iraqis weren't performing. They weren't performing.

In his nomination hearing last Thursday, I asked General Casey about these and other statements he has made, both publicly and privately, that seem entirely at odds with the situation as most observers find it. I noted, for example, that in recent days, the Secretary of Defense, General Pace, and Admiral Fallon, the new head of Central Command, have all stated that the United States is not winning in Iraq and that we have had a failed strategy. These were clear-cut, realistic statements. But General Casey disagreed, saying I do not agree that we have a failed policy. I do not believe that the current policy has failed.

He may be the only person in America who believes that. This is a judgment issue, not an honor issue. Of course, the civilian leadership is responsible. I believe that the former Secretary of Defense will go down in history with Robert Strange McNamara. But military leaders are also responsible. That is why we give them positions of responsibility because we place in their trust our most precious asset: American blood.

During his own nomination hearing on January 23, Lieutenant General Petraeus stated that five additional brigades were required to implement the President's new military strategy and that he could not accomplish his mission if he didn't have these additional troops. I, for one, worry that five brigades may still be insufficient to accomplish all we are asking our troops to do in Iraq and would prefer that we are on the side of too many troops rather than too few, as has been the case in the past.

General Casey, however, confounding the experts, said in his hearing:

We do need an additional two brigades to implement that

plan.

Not five, not more than five, but just two.

General Casey said the additional three brigades the Department will send ``merely gives General Petraeus great flexibility.''

Remember, we are putting this person, who still doesn't believe we need five brigades, in the position to be the one who is implementing the policy. Given this and other judgments, I don't see in this nominee an accurate assessment of the situation in Iraq or what is required to avoid catastrophe there.

My colleague from Michigan says, well, it is all the civilian commanders' fault. I will put plenty of blame on the civilian commanders and I have for many years, but somehow to absolve the military commander on the ground there, conducting the operations, of any responsibility flies in the face of everything I ever learned in my lifetime of involvement with the military.

Recently, I noticed in the paper there was a submarine with four sailors who were washed overboard. I believe they were later rescued. The commander of the submarine was relieved. I still remember in my earliest youth, when the captain was asleep in the cabin and the USS Missouri ran aground in the mudflats someplace south of here, he was relieved that day of his command.

We put people in positions of responsibility and hold them responsible and we try to reward them as much as we can when they succeed, with the approval of a grateful nation. But we also hold them responsible for failure.

My friend from Michigan and I have a very different view of the responsibilities of commanders in the field, which is why, during World War II and other wars, we have relieved commanders in the field because they were not accomplishing the mission and, if they didn't like the mission, they didn't speak up to get the mission changed, and if they embraced a failed mission, then they were held even more responsible.

I would go on. I want to emphasize, again, what General Casey said in the hearings the other day. Senator Levin said:

. . . even he came to the point, after all these years, of

not having what everybody wanted, which is success in Iraq.

He finally described that mistakes were made. And then he

said, ``Yes, one could define that, doing what we're doing,

as maybe a slow failure.''

In other words, Senator Levin was asking General Casey if what has happened in Iraq was a ``slow failure,'' as stated by the President of the United States. General Casey:

I didn't--I actually don't see it as slow failure. I

actually see it as slow progress.

In the last 4 weeks I believe we have had five helicopters shot down. Casualties have spiked to a very high level. I saw in one of the newspapers this morning that over the past 3-month period they have been perhaps as high or the highest of any time in the war. And we are in a situation of slow progress?

Judgment. Judgment. Judgment. We expect people who are placed in positions of responsibility to exercise good judgment.

There is a lot I could say in response to the statement of my friend from Michigan concerning no responsibility whatsoever for the failures in the hands of the commander on the ground in Iraq. I mean, on its face it is a rather unusual interpretation of the responsibility we give to our commanders on the ground. Of course the ultimate responsibility rests with civilian leadership. Of course it does. That is how our democracy is shaped. But we don't absolve anybody in the chain of command, civilian or military, for the responsibility for failure and it is widely believed by everyone, perhaps with the exception of General Casey, that the policy in Iraq is a failure and that is why we are trying a new strategy in hopes that we prevail in very difficult conditions. There is an old saw about those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. During the Vietnam war there was failure. General Westmoreland, then head of forces in Vietnam, was brought back and made Chief of Staff of the Army even though our policy and strategy in Vietnam had failed. Ask anyone who was a young officer in those days in the United States Army or Marine Corps. It was a blow to their morale because they were held responsible for their performance on the field of battle. We are holding our men and women, both officer and enlisted, responsible for their behavior on the field of battle, as to whether they succeed or fail. But now, in this particular instance, a failed commander is now, again, unfortunately, being promoted to a greater position of responsibility. We are, again, repeating the lessons of history because we ignore them.

I intend to vote against the nomination of General Casey and I hope my colleagues will as well. I say that with all due respect to the honorable service of him and his family to this Nation. It has nothing to do with honorable service. It has everything to do with judgment and positions of responsibility. Just as Abraham Lincoln held generals responsible for performance on the battlefield, so today we should hold commanders responsible for performance on the battlefield.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I repeat, in case Senator Levin didn't hear me, I have criticized the policies and, placed responsibilities on the President, the Vice President and the former Secretary of Defense for the last 3 years over a failed policy in Iraq. The difference Senator Levin and I seem to have is I also hold responsible the commanders in the field for giving accurate information, for providing recommendations that will help to win a conflict rather than subscribing and continuing to this day, to this very day to support a policy everyone acknowledges has failed.

By the way, I said today says are failed--not quotes from a month ago or

6 months ago or a year ago, I say to my friend from Michigan. No one decried those comments, such as ``last throes'' and ``stuff happens'' and ``dead enders'' more than I did at the time. But I hold the entire chain of command responsible down to the commanders in the field.

He says just a few days ago:

I don't see it as slow failure. I actually see it as slow

progress.

The unclassified NIE we have read, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq says, ``We are not making progress.'' It says, ``We are losing.''

We are going to make the chief of staff of the Army the guy who thinks that ``We are making slow progress'' as opposed to the National Intelligence Estimate, which is agreed on by our entire intelligence establishment, that we are losing. So, of course, we hold people responsible. Of course we do. Do I hold our former Secretary of Defense responsible? Absolutely. Absolutely. If he were up for another job, I would be standing here on the floor objecting to it.

Do I hold others in the administration responsible? Absolutely. But this is a leader who is up for an increased responsibility and he has failed in his mission, and that is what it is all about. An honorable and decent man who has served his country, but the message throughout the military now is, unfortunately, as it was with General Westmoreland, ``Even though you fail, you are going to be promoted.''

To somehow say the commander in the field is in some way not responsible in any way for the ``mistakes'' I think flies in the face not only of the record but the tradition we have in the United States of America, of placing the commanders in the field in positions of responsibility and making them accountable for their performance and how they carry out those responsibilities.

I am sure the Senator from Michigan and I will continue to disagree for some period of time because we have a philosophical difference, a fundamental difference of opinion. If you want to blame everything on the civilian leadership, who are of course responsible, who of course history will judge very harshly, that is one way of looking at it. If you say that responsibility is shared down to the commanders in the field, as I do, then you probably have a different view.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Schumer in introducing the Securing Adolescents From Exploitation- Online Act of 2007, otherwise known as the SAFE Act. This bill would clarify and strengthen the requirement that has been a Federal law for almost a decade for electronic communications providers to report images of child pornography to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) and then law enforcement. Simply put, this bill is designed reduce the sexual exploitation of our children, and punish those who cause them physical and emotional harm through sexual exploitation.

This bill would state specifically what information must be reported by electronic communications providers to NCMEC; impose higher penalties on companies that do not report child pornography; and require the Department of Justice to report on the number of investigation and convictions of sex offenders and purveyors of child pornography. In addition, the bill would make the use of the Internet for the exploitation of a child an aggravating factor to the underlying offense that would add 10 years imprisonment to a convicted offender's sentence.

Almost 20 years ago, President Reagan inaugurated the opening of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and called on the Center to ``wake up America and attack the crisis of child victimization.'' Today, thanks to the efforts of NCMEC and many others in the public and private sectors, America is more conscious of the dangers of child exploitation. Unfortunately, our children still face significant threats from those who see their innocence as an opportunity to do harm. The continuing victimization of our children is readily and all too painfully apparent in the resurgence of child pornography in our world via the Internet.

Technology has contributed to the greater distribution and availability,

and, some believe, desire for child pornography. Cyberspace is host to more than one million images of tens of thousands of children subjected to sexual abuse and exploitation, according to a report by the Texas State legislature. The same report estimated that the over 14 million pornography sites on the Internet house an estimated one million pornographic images of children with 200 new images being posted daily.

According to ECPAT International, a group dedicated to eliminating the sexual exploitation of children, the production and distribution of abuse images of children is estimated to be at least a 3 billion dollar business annually in the U.S. alone. Of all the child pornography images on the Internet, 55 percent are generated from the United States, according to the same group, but these images are also produced around the world.

Just today, the Associated Press reported that Austrian authorities uncovered a major international child pornography ring involving more than 2,360 suspects from 77 countries, including over 600 in the United States, who paid to view videos of young children being sexually abused. According to authorities, the children shown in the videos were under the age of 14 and could be heard screaming in fear.

This investigation would not have happened without the good work of an employee of a Vienna-based Internet file hosting service who noticed the pornographic material during a routine check and then approached authorities. The employee blocked access to the videos while recording the I.P. addresses of people who continued to try to download the material, and gave the details to authorities. Within a 24-hour period, investigators recorded more than 8,000 hits from 2,361 computer I.P. addresses in 77 countries ranging from Algeria to South Africa.

The Federal Government already has a system in place for electronic communications providers to report these images to NCMEC. The Center is directed by law to relay that information to local, State and Federal law enforcement agencies. This reporting system has been useful, but it is in need of several vital improvements.

Today, Federal law requires electronic communication service providers to report child pornography they discover to NCMEC through the CyberTipline, but the current reporting system does not specify exactly what information should be reported. This failure to set forth specific reporting requirements makes the current statute both difficult to comply with and tough to enforce. This omission may have led to less effective prosecution of child pornographers. During a Senate Commerce Committee hearing I chaired last September, NCMEC testified that, ``because there are no guidelines for the contents of these reports, some [companies] do not send customer information that allows NCMEC to identify a law enforcement jurisdiction. So potentially valuable investigative leads are left to sit in the CyberTipline database with no action taken.'' This is unacceptable.

This bill would address the problem by requiring that reporting companies convey a defined set of information to the Center, which is in large part the information that is provided to NCMEC today by the nation's leading Internet service providers. Among other things, the bill would require electronic communications providers to report specific information about any individual involved in producing, distributing, or receiving child pornography. In addition, it would require reporting companies to provide NCMEC with the geographic location of the involved individual such as the individual's physical address and the IP address from which the individual connected to the Internet.

To ensure that law enforcement officials have better odds of prosecuting involved individuals, the bill would also require online service providers to preserve all data that they report to NCMEC for at least 180 days. The bill would help to ensure greater compliance with the child pornography reporting requirements under Federal law by increasing the penalties three-fold for knowing failure to report child pornography to NCMEC. It would also move the reporting requirement from title 42, which relates to the public's health and welfare, to title 18, our Federal criminal code. This is to underscore that a breach of the reporting obligations constitutes a violation of criminal law. In addition, the legislation would eliminate the legal liability of online service providers for actions taken to comply with the child pornography reporting requirements.

The goal of this legislation, is to ensure more thorough reporting of child pornography to NCMEC. I expect that more and better information provided to the Center will lead to a greater number of prosecutions and enhanced protection of our children. However, let me stress that this bill does not require surveillance by electronic communications providers or require that they monitor the content of any communication. The legislation also does not require electronic communications providers to affirmatively seek out child pornography. Rather, it requires online service providers to report child pornography when they become aware of it, either through a report from a subscriber or user, or through a discovery of the material by an employee. As a result, the reporting requirement would protect children while not imposing a financial or administrative burden on online service providers.

To emphasize the heinous nature of these crimes, this bill would make the use of the Internet in the commission of a crime of child exploitation an aggravating factor that would add 10 years to the offender's sentence. The Internet is likely the greatest invention of the 21st century; however, it has also allowed these children to be victimized again and again as these images are widely distributed via the Internet. The fight to protect our children from exploitation has moved from the playground to the Internet, and we must update our laws to reflect this reality.

To address the international nature of child pornography, the bill would permit NCMEC to share reports with foreign law enforcement agencies, subject to approval by the Department of Justice. In addition, the legislation would state the sense of Congress that the executive branch should make child pornography a priority when engaging in negotiations or talks with foreign countries.

The bill would authorize $25 million for our Nation's Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces, which is identical to the amount requested by the Administration in its FY 2008 budget. NCMEC, the National Sheriffs Association, and others believe that such funding would significantly improve the efforts of local, State and Federal law enforcement officials dedicated to identifying and prosecuting those who use the Internet to prey upon our Nation's children.

Lastly, in order to aid law enforcement, the bill would reiterate the position of the Administration that all suppliers of web site domain names should investigate and correct inaccurate data regarding registered domain names so that law enforcement can more easily locate the hosts of such vile pictures of children. To aid Congress in understanding the need for more resources or legislation to combat the proliferation and distribution of child pornography, the bill would require the Department of Justice to report on the number of investigations, prosecutions and convictions of crimes involving the sexual exploitation of children.

This is the second bill Senator Schumer and I have introduced this session to protect our nation's children. Last month, we introduced the Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual-Predators Act of 2007, known as the KIDS Act, which would establish a database of e-mail addresses and other Internet identifying information of convicted sex offenders. The database information would then be available to commercial social networking sites for the purpose of screening their sites' to ensure convicted sex offender are not using the site to prey on children.

Protecting our children is a top priority for all members of Congress. I look forward to working with my colleagues to eradicate the victimization and exploitation of our children, the most innocent members of society, by enacting the KIDS Act and the SAFE Act.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Schumer in introducing the Securing Adolescents From Exploitation- Online Act of 2007, otherwise known as the SAFE Act. This bill would clarify and strengthen the requirement that has been a Federal law for almost a decade for electronic communications providers to report images of child pornography to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) and then law enforcement. Simply put, this bill is designed reduce the sexual exploitation of our children, and punish those who cause them physical and emotional harm through sexual exploitation.

This bill would state specifically what information must be reported by electronic communications providers to NCMEC; impose higher penalties on companies that do not report child pornography; and require the Department of Justice to report on the number of investigation and convictions of sex offenders and purveyors of child pornography. In addition, the bill would make the use of the Internet for the exploitation of a child an aggravating factor to the underlying offense that would add 10 years imprisonment to a convicted offender's sentence.

Almost 20 years ago, President Reagan inaugurated the opening of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and called on the Center to ``wake up America and attack the crisis of child victimization.'' Today, thanks to the efforts of NCMEC and many others in the public and private sectors, America is more conscious of the dangers of child exploitation. Unfortunately, our children still face significant threats from those who see their innocence as an opportunity to do harm. The continuing victimization of our children is readily and all too painfully apparent in the resurgence of child pornography in our world via the Internet.

Technology has contributed to the greater distribution and availability,

and, some believe, desire for child pornography. Cyberspace is host to more than one million images of tens of thousands of children subjected to sexual abuse and exploitation, according to a report by the Texas State legislature. The same report estimated that the over 14 million pornography sites on the Internet house an estimated one million pornographic images of children with 200 new images being posted daily.

According to ECPAT International, a group dedicated to eliminating the sexual exploitation of children, the production and distribution of abuse images of children is estimated to be at least a 3 billion dollar business annually in the U.S. alone. Of all the child pornography images on the Internet, 55 percent are generated from the United States, according to the same group, but these images are also produced around the world.

Just today, the Associated Press reported that Austrian authorities uncovered a major international child pornography ring involving more than 2,360 suspects from 77 countries, including over 600 in the United States, who paid to view videos of young children being sexually abused. According to authorities, the children shown in the videos were under the age of 14 and could be heard screaming in fear.

This investigation would not have happened without the good work of an employee of a Vienna-based Internet file hosting service who noticed the pornographic material during a routine check and then approached authorities. The employee blocked access to the videos while recording the I.P. addresses of people who continued to try to download the material, and gave the details to authorities. Within a 24-hour period, investigators recorded more than 8,000 hits from 2,361 computer I.P. addresses in 77 countries ranging from Algeria to South Africa.

The Federal Government already has a system in place for electronic communications providers to report these images to NCMEC. The Center is directed by law to relay that information to local, State and Federal law enforcement agencies. This reporting system has been useful, but it is in need of several vital improvements.

Today, Federal law requires electronic communication service providers to report child pornography they discover to NCMEC through the CyberTipline, but the current reporting system does not specify exactly what information should be reported. This failure to set forth specific reporting requirements makes the current statute both difficult to comply with and tough to enforce. This omission may have led to less effective prosecution of child pornographers. During a Senate Commerce Committee hearing I chaired last September, NCMEC testified that, ``because there are no guidelines for the contents of these reports, some [companies] do not send customer information that allows NCMEC to identify a law enforcement jurisdiction. So potentially valuable investigative leads are left to sit in the CyberTipline database with no action taken.'' This is unacceptable.

This bill would address the problem by requiring that reporting companies convey a defined set of information to the Center, which is in large part the information that is provided to NCMEC today by the nation's leading Internet service providers. Among other things, the bill would require electronic communications providers to report specific information about any individual involved in producing, distributing, or receiving child pornography. In addition, it would require reporting companies to provide NCMEC with the geographic location of the involved individual such as the individual's physical address and the IP address from which the individual connected to the Internet.

To ensure that law enforcement officials have better odds of prosecuting involved individuals, the bill would also require online service providers to preserve all data that they report to NCMEC for at least 180 days. The bill would help to ensure greater compliance with the child pornography reporting requirements under Federal law by increasing the penalties three-fold for knowing failure to report child pornography to NCMEC. It would also move the reporting requirement from title 42, which relates to the public's health and welfare, to title 18, our Federal criminal code. This is to underscore that a breach of the reporting obligations constitutes a violation of criminal law. In addition, the legislation would eliminate the legal liability of online service providers for actions taken to comply with the child pornography reporting requirements.

The goal of this legislation, is to ensure more thorough reporting of child pornography to NCMEC. I expect that more and better information provided to the Center will lead to a greater number of prosecutions and enhanced protection of our children. However, let me stress that this bill does not require surveillance by electronic communications providers or require that they monitor the content of any communication. The legislation also does not require electronic communications providers to affirmatively seek out child pornography. Rather, it requires online service providers to report child pornography when they become aware of it, either through a report from a subscriber or user, or through a discovery of the material by an employee. As a result, the reporting requirement would protect children while not imposing a financial or administrative burden on online service providers.

To emphasize the heinous nature of these crimes, this bill would make the use of the Internet in the commission of a crime of child exploitation an aggravating factor that would add 10 years to the offender's sentence. The Internet is likely the greatest invention of the 21st century; however, it has also allowed these children to be victimized again and again as these images are widely distributed via the Internet. The fight to protect our children from exploitation has moved from the playground to the Internet, and we must update our laws to reflect this reality.

To address the international nature of child pornography, the bill would permit NCMEC to share reports with foreign law enforcement agencies, subject to approval by the Department of Justice. In addition, the legislation would state the sense of Congress that the executive branch should make child pornography a priority when engaging in negotiations or talks with foreign countries.

The bill would authorize $25 million for our Nation's Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces, which is identical to the amount requested by the Administration in its FY 2008 budget. NCMEC, the National Sheriffs Association, and others believe that such funding would significantly improve the efforts of local, State and Federal law enforcement officials dedicated to identifying and prosecuting those who use the Internet to prey upon our Nation's children.

Lastly, in order to aid law enforcement, the bill would reiterate the position of the Administration that all suppliers of web site domain names should investigate and correct inaccurate data regarding registered domain names so that law enforcement can more easily locate the hosts of such vile pictures of children. To aid Congress in understanding the need for more resources or legislation to combat the proliferation and distribution of child pornography, the bill would require the Department of Justice to report on the number of investigations, prosecutions and convictions of crimes involving the sexual exploitation of children.

This is the second bill Senator Schumer and I have introduced this session to protect our nation's children. Last month, we introduced the Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual-Predators Act of 2007, known as the KIDS Act, which would establish a database of e-mail addresses and other Internet identifying information of convicted sex offenders. The database information would then be available to commercial social networking sites for the purpose of screening their sites' to ensure convicted sex offender are not using the site to prey on children.

Protecting our children is a top priority for all members of Congress. I look forward to working with my colleagues to eradicate the victimization and exploitation of our children, the most innocent members of society, by enacting the KIDS Act and the SAFE Act.

Madam President, if the Senator will yield for a question.

I thank the Senate majority leader for yielding for a question, and I appreciate his willingness to engage in a dialogue on this issue.

In reference to the question of the Senator from Washington to the majority leader, I do want our resolution debated. We are trying to move forward. As I think the Senator from Nevada is aware, there was a proposal to have a 60-vote, which is the way the Senate does business, on three resolutions--on the Warner, McCain, and Gregg resolutions--and that was turned down. I only agreed to the latest proposal because I think we need to move the process forward.

I guess what I am asking the Senator from Nevada is, isn't it really true that the way we do business here does require 60 votes? It is just a reality of the way the Senate functions. When there was an attempt a year ago, 2 years ago, actually, with the so-called nuclear option, I was one who fought hard to preserve the right of the majority to have 60 votes in the case of the appointment of judges, and I think we reached a bipartisan agreement on that.

So I still am a bit puzzled why we could not have a vote on my resolution that would require 60 votes in order for it to be adopted, just as it would be for the Warner resolution and as it would be for the Gregg resolution. I don't quite understand why we couldn't do that, as we have done hundreds of times in the past, as the Senator knows, because we have been in the Senate for many years.

That is my question. Again, I thank the majority leader for allowing me to engage in this discussion with him.

Madam President, will the Senator yield for one more question?

Madam President, again, I appreciate the courtesy of the majority leader.

Is it not true that when the Senator says he supports the troops, that there is disapproval of what they are doing and that the Senator does not think their mission is going to succeed? And is it not true that maybe some of the troops may not view that as an expression of support?

I talked to many men and women in the military in recent days, ranking from private to general. Isn't it true that most of them, if you had the opportunity to talk to them, would say: When they do not support my mission, they do not support me?

Therefore, isn't it just a little bit of an intellectual problem to say: Of course, we support the troops; of course, we support the troops; of course, we support the troops, but we are sending you over-- and they are going because this is a nonbinding resolution--aren't we saying that we think they are going to fail and this is a vote of no confidence?

The so-called Warner amendment, by the way, is not a Republican amendment, no matter whose name is on it.

Is it not true that when I look one of these soldiers or marines in the eye and say: I really support you, my friend, and I know you are going into harm's way, but I don't think you are going to succeed, in fact, I am against your mission, but I support you, that they do not buy it? They do not buy it, I will say to my friend from Nevada, and don't think that they do.

So I would ask my friend if it isn't true a vote of no confidence is a vote of no confidence to the men and women who are serving in the military. It doesn't sell.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my good friend and colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold in once again introducing legislation to replace the Federal Election Commission (FEC) with the Federal Election Administration (FEA). The FEA would serve as an independent body to enforce Federal campaign laws-- something the FEC has been unable, and often unwilling, to do.

This legislation would terminate the FEC and establish a new regulatory entity. Using a new organizational structure and administrative law judges, we hope to avoid the routine partisan deadlocks that are now so prevalent at the FEC.

This bill would authorize the new FEA to impose civil penalties, issue cease and desist orders, report apparent criminal violations to the appropriate law enforcement authorities, and conduct audits and field examinations of campaign committees. Finally, this bill would direct the Comptroller General to examine and report to Congress on the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the Federal campaign finance laws.

I urge my colleagues to support this common sense reform proposal.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my good friend and colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold in once again introducing legislation to replace the Federal Election Commission (FEC) with the Federal Election Administration (FEA). The FEA would serve as an independent body to enforce Federal campaign laws-- something the FEC has been unable, and often unwilling, to do.

This legislation would terminate the FEC and establish a new regulatory entity. Using a new organizational structure and administrative law judges, we hope to avoid the routine partisan deadlocks that are now so prevalent at the FEC.

This bill would authorize the new FEA to impose civil penalties, issue cease and desist orders, report apparent criminal violations to the appropriate law enforcement authorities, and conduct audits and field examinations of campaign committees. Finally, this bill would direct the Comptroller General to examine and report to Congress on the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the Federal campaign finance laws.

I urge my colleagues to support this common sense reform proposal.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the service of the Grand Canyon National Park Superintendent, Joe Alston, who is retiring this week. Joe is a man of considerable integrity, ability, and achievement, and his presence at the Grand Canyon will be deeply missed.

After 31 dedicated years, Joe Alston is retiring from the National Park Service. He has spent the last 6 years serving as the superintendent of the Grand Canyon National Park, the crown jewel of Arizona and one of the Nation's oldest and most heavily visited National Parks. Joe has held a wide variety of positions in the Park Service beginning with his first job as a seasonal firefighter on the North Rim of the Grand Canyon. In the years that followed, Joe worked as a concessions specialist at Yellowstone National Park and later became the chief of the Concessions Management Division in the Alaska Regional Office. More recently, Joe Alston was the assistant superintendent of Yellowstone National Park and eventually served as superintendent at several major National Park units such as the Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, the Curecanti National Recreation Area, the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, and the Rainbow Bridge National Monument.

We are very fortunate to have benefited from the passion and expertise that Superintendent Alston brought to the Grand Canyon. Joe was challenged with many complex issues and longstanding conflicts ranging from park transportation to aircraft overflights, yet he has managed them all with foresight, thoughtfulness, and resolve. Under Joe's leadership, the Park Service saw the completion of the Colorado River Management Plan, which protects park resources by implementing a new river permitting system that balances competing commercial and recreational interests. Despite its highly contentious nature, it was Superintendent Alston's desire to hear and understand the views of river runners and other constituents by affording the public every opportunity to provide input during the CRMP planning process. Few superintendents in National Park Service history have undertaken such an open nationwide approach that concluded with such remarkable success.

The Grand Canyon has received many honors during Superintendent Alston's tenure. In 2004, Grand Canyon National Park was recognized for a number of environmental accomplishments by EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt, including having the first EPA certified Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design ``green building'' owned and operated in a National Park. Joe was the driving force behind the implementation of new training programs that led to the reduction of visitor and employee injuries which earned the Park the Regional Director's Safety Excellence Award and the Director's Safety Excellence Award for Public Safety Achievement in 2005. Among the many accolades Joe has received over the years, perhaps the most noteworthy came in 2005 when Secretary Gale Norton awarded him the Meritorious Service Award, the second highest honorary recognition granted to Interior Department employees.

Joe Alston's ties to the Grand Canyon extend beyond his outstanding professional career. Indeed, the Grand Canyon also happens to be where he met his wife, Judy, who is a teacher with the Grand Canyon Public Schools System. Joe is regarded by those living in northern Arizona as an individual deeply connected to the community. Just last month, he accepted the Community Person of the Year award from the Grand Canyon Rotary Club for ushering in a new era of partnership between the communities of Tusayan, AZ, and Grand Canyon National Park.

My son and I had the distinct pleasure of hiking the Grand Canyon rim to rim last year with the accompaniment of Joe Alston. I can think of few others alive today who are as knowledgeable and devoted to the history and culture of the Grand Canyon than Superintendent Alston. I wish Joe the very best in his future goals and ambitions.