Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to honor the life of a special Idahoan who is also the father of my colleague from Idaho, Senator Larry Craig. Elvin Oren Craig, who passed away last week, left many legacies and will be missed by many people. In Idaho, he served as a lifelong advocate for Idaho agriculture, and a leader in Washington County, Midvale and Weiser. He also was very active in his local VFW Post in Midvale, ID. At 87 years old, he had remained active despite a diagnosis of prostate cancer. In fact, he worked until only about 6 months ago when he decided it might be time to let up a little bit. Elvin Craig's legacy also lives on in my colleague and in Senator Craig's consistent and honorable service to Idahoans over his years in public office. I know that Elvin was proud of his son's service to Idaho and the country--first in the Idaho State Senate, then in the U.S. House of Representatives, and now in the U.S. Senate.

Elvin's family and friends know of his community service and his persistent commitment over many years to Idaho's farmers and ranchers and his own family. He worked hard while maintaining his sense of humor. His full life was an outstanding example of what it means to be an Idahoan. I am pleased to pay tribute to a remarkable man, Elvin Oren Craig, and to share my condolences to my friend, Larry Craig, and his family upon the passing of a great man.

Mr. President, I would like to recognize a nontraditional Idaho community that although a Federal installation, is as much a part of our State as any other community. The Mountain Home Air Force Base Gunfighters support and execute our military air mission worldwide while devoting time and energy to improve the quality of life on base and off.

In the 1940s, Mountain Home Air Force Base was established and over the next few decades took on many different Air Force missions including bombers, fighters, tankers, and even intercontinental ballistic missiles for a short time. As the needs and overall mission of the Air Force has evolved over the years, Mountain Home has followed suit, proven to be a site of flexibility and superior support, operations, and training. Wings based at Mountain Home have provided air support all around the world and, in times of need like September 11, here at home. The capabilities of the personnel, facilities, resources and organizations at Mountain Home have always been characterized by flexibility, readiness and immediate and forceful global deployment in a tightly controlled and effective command and control environment. Exercising their skills and military professionalism, Gunfighters have not only fought the battles but participated in reconstruction and humanitarian missions in the current conflict in the Middle East as well as other places around the globe where innocent people are suffering from the evils of poverty, economic oppression, and the tragedies of natural disasters.

In a similar way, Gunfighters have proven to be able to ``deploy'' to the community on base and off at a moment's notice when duty calls. Last year alone, volunteers worked on base more than 100,000 hours valued at $1.5 million. Many of these individuals already have more than full-time work in the military but have found the time to make a difference to others expecting no compensation. Stories abound of emergency assistance given by members of the military to civilians in Idaho. Recently, two jet fighters escorted a disabled civilian aircraft to safety, averting a possible crash and fatality. Another form of giving that is particularly important to the troops who are deployed is donating blood. I am proud to say that in the recent Armed Forces blood drive, Mountain Home Air Force Base more than doubled its goal and donated a total of 265 units of blood that was shipped directly to Iraq. In addition, the base sent 60 units of a special blood product designed to promote quick clotting to our mobile medical units. What a terrific example of fellow soldiers and families lending aid and comfort to our military men and women across the world.

I offer my sincere thanks and gratitude to our very own Idaho Gunfighters, both at Mountain Home and deployed. You make Idaho proud.

Mr. President, a small town in Idaho celebrates its 100th birthday this month. Potlatch, named after the lumber company that made its home there in the early part of the 20th Century, was started by Frederick Weyerhaeuser after scouts reported that it would be a fine place to establish a lumber company. When the mill opened, it was the largest white pine sawmill in the world and, in a very interesting way, a social experiment. Weyerhaeuser built a ``company town'' including homes, churches, a post office, schools, commercial buildings and even an opera house and ensured the new towns connectivity to commerce by building a railroad. When you think about it, this is quite a phenomenal achievement even for a large company and showed tremendous business foresight as well as a consideration of the needs of its workers. Older residents even tell stories about the rather unique way that students were kept in line at school: if the students got into trouble, the parents were told that they would lose their job at the mill if the bad behavior continued. How times have changed!

Although the population is only about half of what it was in its heyday, and no longer a ``company town,'' the notion of community that was bred over decades lives on in Potlatch residents today. I congratulate Potlatch on 100 years of community success.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I stand and join my colleague, Senator Bunning from Kentucky. I was one of those who was able to be on this trip to Guantanamo yesterday. Along with Senator Isakson from Georgia, we were joined there by two other Senators, Senator Wyden from Oregon and also Senator Nelson from Nebraska, who came in on a separate trip.

We had an opportunity to view exactly what is happening at Guantanamo. As I said, I am glad to be able to stand with my colleague, Senator Bunning, and set the record straight about what the United States and the honorable men and women of our armed services are doing to serve the United States, the people of this country, and, frankly, the people of the world as we fight to defeat terrorism.

I want to first thank my colleague, Senator Bunning, who has given a very thorough and helpful review. I will try not to repeat too many of the things he went through, but he has identified the core points that need to be made as we discuss what is truly happening at Guantanamo.

I want to start out by going into a little bit of detail about who exactly is there. Secondly, I want to talk a little bit about the legal framework because, frankly, a lot of the debate we hear throughout the country and throughout the world today has to do with different points of view about the legal framework within which we are dealing with the circumstances at Guantanamo.

Then I want to talk about the question of transparency; in other words, do we really know what is happening there? I know there are a lot of people who will say: You went there and you visited, but did you really see the truth? I want to talk about that. I also want to talk about what we saw--how are the detainees being treated.

Finally, I want to talk about our own troops. What is their morale? And what is their conduct? And then, actually, the last thing I want to talk about is: Of what benefit to the United States and the world is Guantanamo?

I am going to go back now and talk, first of all, about who is there. I think there has been a bit of a misconception about who it is we are detaining at Guantanamo.

Since the effort began in defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan--and it has expanded to the war in Iraq--the United States has captured more than 70,000 detainees--70,000--in the conduct of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Among that number, the vast majority have been handled in other ways. Either they have been released or they have been turned over to other authorities, other nations, or they are being held in facilities in the area of the battle. But we are working with Iraq, Afghanistan, and other governments to make sure they take control of detainees to the maximum extent possible.

But there are some detainees who are so dangerous that we have made the decision we must maintain control over them. They are also controlled because they have information that is critical to us in the battle against terrorism. And after a very thorough vetting process, out of 70,000 who have been captured in these battles and in other efforts to fight against terrorism, approximately 800 have been moved to Guantanamo.

My numbers are going to be kind of rounded here, but of that 800, about 235 have already been released or moved into the custody of other countries. My colleague, Senator Bunning, indicated that is not always good news. At least 12 of those who have been released have been found again in the battlefield--some of them killed in battle, others captured again, and at least one was found to have ordered some very significant terrorist activities after being released from Guantanamo.

But about 235 of the 800 who we determined were so dangerous they needed to be moved to Guantanamo have been released or put into the custody of other countries. Approximately 520 remain at Guantanamo. Who are these 520? These are terrorist trainers. These are bomb makers. These are recruiters and facilitators for al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. These are terrorist financiers. These are bodyguards of Osama bin Laden. And these are would-be suicide bombers--to name just a few of those who we have identified and the activities we are stopping by keeping them detained.

I am going to come back a little bit later and talk about what we learn from these detainees. But I would like to talk, next, a little bit about some of the details of individuals whom we have identified. An elaborate process has been put into place, as I indicated, to identify whom we will return and take to Guantanamo to assess the threat they pose to the United States and the international community, and then to give regular review to this process to be sure they are still the threat that they were and deserve to be kept at the Guantanamo base.

But as a result of this effort, we have collected the most dangerous, and the ones with the most information who can give us the most assistance, through the interrogation process, to help us pursue the war against terrorism.

These detainees include terrorists who are linked to a major al-Qaida attack, including attacks in east Africa, the U.S. Embassy bombings, and the USS Cole attack; terrorists who taught or received training teams on arms, explosives, surveillance, and interrogation resistance at al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan and elsewhere; terrorists who continue to express their commitment to kill Americans, if released; terrorists who have sworn personal allegiance to Osama bin Laden; terrorists who have been linked to several al-Qaida operational plans, including possible targeting of facilities in the United States; members of al- Qaida's international terrorism support network including the financiers, the couriers, the recruiters, and the operatives and those who participated in attempted hijacking instances.

Let me give a couple specific examples. One al-Qaida explosives trainer is there who has provided information to the United States on the September 2001 assassination of Massoud and on the al-Qaida organization's use of mines; another individual who completed advanced terrorist training at camps in Afghanistan and participated in an attempted hijacking and escaped while in custody that resulted in the deaths of Pakistani guards; another individual who was involved in terrorist financing who provided information on Osama bin Laden's front companies, accounts, and international money movements for financing terror. The list goes on and on. This is who is there at Guantanamo. These are the people whom we seek to detain and about whom the debate in this country revolves. They are dangerous, and they must be kept under control or they will kill more Americans and threaten people throughout the world.

What is the legal framework within which they are being detained? That is the crux, though it is not often stated that way, of the debate. I will get into this in more detail, but Senator Bunning has already indicated, the treatment that is being provided to the detainees is probably the most humane, high quality treatment any nation that has ever captured detainees at war has ever provided to its prisoners. I suspect no other nation today or throughout history could claim to be treating its detainees better. But still the question arises, how and under what legal framework should they be handled? There is an irony here. These

detainees do not serve in a normal army. They do not wear uniforms. They do not serve a nation that is a signer to the Geneva Conventions. They do not honor Geneva Conventions, meaning they do not refrain from attacking civilians and conducting terrorist activities. And because they do not qualify in these categories, they don't qualify under the Geneva Conventions as prisoners of war.

Here is the irony. If they were prisoners of war, they wouldn't be entitled to the legal benefits about which we are now wrangling. They would be entitled to humane treatment, but they would not be entitled to get into the court system of the country that has captured them.

Many throughout this Nation and throughout the world are saying we should provide all of the legal benefits in a criminal law system, such as the criminal justice system in the United States, to these detainees. The United States has declined to do so, stating that these are enemy combatants under the Geneva Conventions. But they are not prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. And there is the irony. If we could classify them as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions, we could avoid the debate about what their rights are and how they should be treated. Instead, since they are not a group entitled to participate in the United States criminal justice system and are not a group entitled to be considered prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions, but are instead enemy combatants under the Geneva Conventions in a category for which nations have not yet agreed on how they should be treated, the United States is embroiled in a debate as to how to treat them.

How have we resolved this decision? On January 19, 2002, the Secretary of Defense gave specific guidance that all detainees are to be treated humanely. On January 21, the same year, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff issued executive orders to commanders that transmitted the Secretary of Defense order that these detainees be treated humanely. On February 7, 2002, President Bush determined that al-Qaida and Taliban detainees should be treated humanely, consistent with the principles of the Geneva Conventions and consistent with military necessity. The detention of enemy combatants in wartime is not an act of punishment. It is a matter of security and military necessity. It prevents enemy combatants from continuing to fight against the United States or its partners in the war on terror. Releasing enemy combatants before the end of hostilities and allowing them to rejoin the fight would only prolong the conflict and endanger our coalition and American forces.

Here is the point of the debate. The United States, though these enemy combatants are in an uncertain category, has provided to them all of the humane treatment required by the Geneva Convention and more legal rights than they would have if they were prisoners of war. Yet the United States continues to be criticized because there are those-- and this is what everyone needs to understand--who will not be satisfied until we choose not to treat these enemy combatants in the context of a war but instead choose to treat them as criminals in a criminal justice system and thereby change the legal framework under which they are being handled. The United States correctly and properly refuses to do so. If we were to do so, we would not be able to defend the interests of the country against enemies who are conducting war against us as effectively as we can if we are able to treat them under the Geneva Conventions as enemy combatants. And when you hear the debate about how they are being treated, listen carefully, because most of the debate is not about their physical condition or whether they are being treated humanely. It is about how they are being categorized with regard to these legal battles that those who are engaged in the issue wish to see ensue.

Let's talk about what we saw, and then I will describe how they are actually physically being treated and whether what we saw is true. I have already had those who knew that I went there ask me whether the opportunity we had is one which truly showed us what was happening at Guantanamo. To me this is an issue of transparency. What is happening there, and were we shown what was truly going on?

First, we visited every facility there. Five Senators, with many other individuals with us from other government agencies, went through and visited every facility. My colleague Senator Bunning indicated that we even went to Camp X-Ray which has not been utilized for 2 or 3 years and which is literally overgrown. I walked into one of the containment facilities there at Camp X-Ray. I had to brush away the weeds in order to move through the door and to go in and see what it looked like. We visited Camps 1, 2, 3, and 4. And they are numbered in terms of the order in which they were built. These are the newer camps that were constructed to provide better facilities for these detainees than were originally there at Camp X-Ray when we first started using the base. We were able to see the medical facilities. We were able to observe literally everything at the base. And I can say that I don't think it would have been possible for them to have hidden from us what was happening.

We were able to observe the interrogations, to interview and discuss with the personnel present what was happening, right down to the troops who were conducting the specific guarding activities inside the cell blocks. If that is not sufficient, the International Committee of the Red Cross has had 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week access to the facility at its discretion. They have had a permanent presence, recently changing that only at their choosing. The media, both national and international, have had 400 visits to Guantanamo, representing over 1,000 members of the media who have been there to also observe. Lawyers for the detainees, who would not even be allowed if we categorized them as prisoners of war, have come and, in many of the habeas corpus cases, to observe and discuss with the detainees. And somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 to 20 Senators and 75 to 100 Representatives, in addition to over 100 congressional staff, have been there to observe.

My point is that in terms of transparency, is the United States letting its own people, its Congress, and the world know what is being done there? I believe the answer is clearly yes.

My colleague Senator Bunning went through the numbers of deaths in the Nazi concentration camps, in the gulags under Stalin, and the numbers, you will recall, were in the millions. Not one detainee has died at Guantanamo. On the contrary, they have the best medical care that I believe any detainees in history have ever had. So as far as the question goes with regard to whether we are providing a true and accurate picture to the public about what is happening there, the answer is unequivocally yes.

What is happening there? I would like to talk a little bit about what we saw. As I indicated, there are a number of facilities. They are called Camp 1, 2, 3, and 4. They are building Camp 5 and Camp 6. They are different in terms of the levels of security and in terms of the operations. Those who are detained there are able to be in one of the camps versus the other camps depending on how they respond to their detention. If they are the more violent kind who do not follow instructions, then they are often in individual confinement. This individual confinement does not mean solitary confinement. It means they would be in a cell block with 40 or 50 others, and you can see each other through the cell. These are not enclosed. So they have the ability to play chess between cells and so forth. They have running water, sinks, and toilets in each cell.

They have religious paraphernalia so they can practice their religion. They are facilitated in the practice of that religion by being provided with prayer calls and with directions. From wherever in the camp you are, you can see an arrow that points toward Mecca so you know the directions. They are provided recreational opportunities, showers, and three, good, solid meals a day, as well as outstanding medical care. Those are the ones who are in the most closely confined circumstances. Those who are more willing to follow instructions and less willing to attack their guards are allowed to live in more communal circumstances where the rooms, instead of being individual cell units, are in units where ten or more can live together, and then those groups can go out in recreational facilities and have

a little bit expanded recreational opportunity and the like.

Then there is the maximum security facilities which would be comparable to the kinds of similar facilities that are there that you could find anywhere in the United States, in prison facilities that are subject to extensive litigation and oversight by attorneys and our own judicial system. Throughout this entire process, whether one is in the most extreme, highest maximum security circumstance or whether one is in some of those areas where the more responsible detainees are able to be, they are always provided with the best possible treatment. I don't believe it would be possible for a valid argument of some type of physical abuse to be made because there is such care there to be certain that even when the detainees are being interrogated--and, by the way, the interrogation is a very humane and, frankly, easygoing process which does not create physical threat to the detainees--there are always more than one or two or three people observing what is happening so there cannot be a circumstance where something goes awry and someone abuses the relationship and the situation.

Let me talk a little bit about the medical care. I said they are getting top-notch medical care. I asked many of those who we were there with what the comparability would be between the medical care provided to these detainees and that provided to detainees by other nations in other wars or in other circumstances. Consistently no one could give me an example of better medical care ever being provided anywhere. I asked if it was equivalent to the kind of medical care that our own troops were being provided. The answer was yes. It is probably better medical care than these detainees have ever had in their lifetime. When they were first brought there, many of them had traumatic injuries from the battles in which they were captured. Those injuries were treated. Now they have reached a point that they have been there several years, some of them, where they are being treated for the kinds of problems you and I and others would want to have medical care for. They are getting annual checkups. They are being treated for diabetes, if they have back ailments or heart problems, whatever it may be, if they have dietary needs, they are being treated for them.

A number of them have lost their limbs, not because they lost them in battle but because they lost them while they were building bombs to blow up Americans. And we have provided treatment for their loss of limbs and actually provided them with prosthetics and helped them with the physical therapy so they can regain the use of their bodies to the maximum extent we can help them. We have facilities there to do major surgery. We have all kinds of other support. If they have medical needs that go beyond what we have there available, they are taken elsewhere to get that medical treatment.

In fact, I would like to move now to the discussion of what the morale of our troops is. I think as we met there with people at all levels, from the guards to those who ran the hospitals to the managers to everyone else, I could honestly say the morale of our troops there is very high. But there is a concern that was consistently expressed to me by them. I had the opportunity to have lunch with some of those who were literally on the front lines having to go into the cell blocks and to provide the guard service around the clock with these detainees.

And they are concerned about what the American people and the international public think about them and about what they are doing because they believe they are treating these detainees with the highest respect and with the most humane treatment possible. They are overseeing it rigorously. If any of them steps out of line, they get handled and they get in trouble. Yet they are subjected constantly to threats and harassment and abuse from the detainees.

It is my perspective that if anyone is being abused at Guantanamo, it is not the detainees, it is the good young men and women guards who are there on the front line, who are themselves physically threatened, verbally threatened, and in other ways abused. It has been reported what kinds of things are thrown at them through the cell blocks as they walk through. When they happen to go through and a detainee throws urine or feces on them, they have to go out, be hosed off, and go back into duty. If anyone is being abused at Guantanamo, it is the treatment that is being afforded to our men and women of the military that is causing the abuse to them, rather than the reverse.

For those here in this body or anywhere else to accuse our men and women of mistreating those at Guantanamo is a great irony because any abuse or mistreatment that is happening is the reverse.

I am proud of our men and women there. They are truly doing a great service for this country and for this world. Let me conclude by talking a little bit about what that is.

By the way, I forgot one piece of information. I have talked about the medical facilities and other kinds of support that have been provided to these detainees to make sure they are being properly cared for. In the newest facilities, the prisoners even get air conditioning, which is not something most of the troops get, at least during their working hours. But what does that cost us? What kind of investment has the United States made? To this point, the United States has spent over $241 million in providing these medical facilities, these containment and detention facilities, and for the care and treatment and feeding of these detainees. The annual cost will go on probably at $100 million a year, until we are able to resolve this conflict. The United States has also spent over $140 million in existing or new detention facilities in Afghanistan and Iraq. So we are putting a tremendous amount in here.

What benefit does it provide to us? As I indicated, the purpose of this detention, to me, is twofold. First of all, it is to stop dangerous terrorists from being put back into the field so they can go back out and continue to kill Americans and others and train and facilitate other terrorists in doing the same thing. The first thing is to stop them from committing terrorist activity. The second purpose is to be able to gain from them information that will help us better pursue or fight against terrorists around the world. The question of Guantanamo detainees, which I will again state is not the kind of interrogation that one thinks of when they think of a gulag, or what you might see on TV as a threatening interrogation. This is entirely nonthreatening interrogation. It has improved the security of our Nation and coalition partners by helping us to expand our understanding of the operations of the terrorists. It has given us an expanded understanding of the organizational structure of al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. It has given us more knowledge of the extent of the terrorist presence in Europe, the United States, and the Middle East. It has given us knowledge of al-Qaida's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, of methods of recruitment and location of recruitment centers, terrorist skill sets, general and specialized operative training, and of how legitimate financial activities are being used to hide terrorist operations.

The intelligence we are gaining by the interrogations of those who are kept at Guantanamo has prevented terrorist attacks and has saved American lives. Not only has no one died at Guantanamo, not only has the highest health care possible been provided to them, but lives have been saved as a result of our activities there. Detainees have revealed al-Qaida leadership structures and operating funding mechanisms, training and selection programs, travel patterns, support infrastructure, and plans for attacking the United Sates and other countries. Information has been used by our forces on the battlefield to identify significant military and tribal leaders who are engaged in or supporting attacks on coalition forces. Detainees have continuously provided information that confirms other reporting regarding the roles and intentions of al-Qaida and other terrorist operatives.

I could get into details, but I will not do that publicly. The fact is, we are getting extensive, detailed information from the terrorists who are kept at Guantanamo, which is saving American lives and helping us to protect our young men and women in the military and people in other nations.

I want to conclude my remarks by coming back to the beginning. There has been a lot of debate about what is going on at Guantanamo. What is the United States doing? Why is it doing it? Is the United States creating some type of a new detention circumstance in modern warfare, which parallels some of the most terrible examples that our critics have been able to throw up at us? I went down there wanting to know and wanting to see and to be able to report back to the American people about what truly is happening.

What I found was that the U.S. men and women of our Armed Forces are committed, honorable, loyal, duty-bound members of the American military who are following the orders of their Commander in Chief to the letter, following the Geneva Conventions, and providing beyond what the Geneva Conventions even requires in terms of protection to these detainees, in a service to America and to the world. I found a circumstance where I don't believe a valid argument can be made that there is any nonhumane treatment of these detainees. I found a circumstance in which it appears to me that what is being portrayed by some is simply manufactured out of whole cloth in order to perpetuate a broader debate against the United States and our interests.

I also became convinced that, far beyond being simply a detention facility, Guantanamo is one of the key strategic interrogation facilities necessary for the United States in pursuit of the war against terror in this world. As we have said in both of our remarks, Guantanamo is where the worst of the worst are taken. They are taken there to be protected so that we can be protected from them and so that we can gain information from them that will help us better protect ourselves as we continue to fight to defend against the likes of Osama bin Laden.

I also stand here to commend the young men and women of our fighting forces--not just those who at Guantanamo are suffering the abuse of the detainees and the extremes of the weather and the living circumstances there to defend us, but those who serve throughout this world, whether it be in Iraq or Afghanistan or any of the other points of conflict or in any other of the stations around this world, where we have men and women deployed to defend our interests.

The United States is at war against terrorists and we must acknowledge that. The efforts of the men and women in our military should be commended, not discredited. I stand as one Senator to thank the men and women of our Armed Forces for the tremendous job they do. They put their lives on the line daily for us and they should be given our thanks, not our criticism.

With that, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, during Senate vote No. 139, pertaining to amendment No. 779, I was necessarily absent. Had I been present, I intended to vote ``yes.'' I ask that the Record reflect this.

Mr. President, as we wind down from a Presidential election year and gear up for yet another cycle of congressional elections, it seems appropriate to take a moment and consider how important an educated electorate is to this country. It is the bedrock upon which our Founding Fathers built a fledgling government, creating a Constitution that functions with protean efficiency--inextricably bound to the necessity of knowledgeable and civic-minded citizens. I am proud to make public mention of the Moscow, ID, chapter of the League of Women Voters, which has won an award from the League of Women Voters of the United States for its efforts to educate future voters in north Idaho.

The League of Women Voters promotes a mock election program through its State and local chapters across the Nation. The Moscow chapter conducted what can only be described as a phenomenal month-long series of events and outreach that culminated in late October in the most successful ``mock election'' in Idaho and one of the top in the Nation. They were able to register and have almost 2900 first through twelfth- graders in the Moscow area vote. And I am relieved to add that I was reelected by these young people.

The chapter worked to bring together local, county, and State officials, teachers, parents, and volunteers to provide these students with a comprehensive and highly educational election experience. The students were given issues ballots, information about the candidates, Web site curriculum, sample ballots and had to abide by all

of the State voting laws. Students were taught their voting rights under the Help America Vote Act, and the overall efforts were so successful that the League of Women Voters of Idaho and the Idaho Secretary of State's office asked them to share their mock election handbook for instruction and use by other organizations in the State.

The Moscow chapter went above and beyond in its outreach efforts, bringing in students from an alternative high school and made voting accessible for handicapped students under Americans For Disabilities Act laws. In the successful aftermath, the effect has been felt throughout the community as private schools and home-schooling parents have expressed interest in becoming involved in the future. Even more noteworthy, although parents were not required to participate, more parents volunteered than in past years, and it could be surmised that this ``mock election'' contributed to the historically high voter turnout in that area of Idaho for the real elections in November.

Thomas Jefferson said: ``If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.'' I congratulate the outstanding efforts of the League of Women Voters of Moscow on its remarkable effort to reinforce civic education and voter responsibility in Idaho's children.

Mr. President, there is a small town in Idaho that celebrates a very special anniversary this year. Fifty years ago in 1955, the St. Anthony, ID Chamber of Commerce paid for travelers to have coffee and donuts at any of the local cafes to celebrate the opening day of fishing season. The effort, which encouraged fishermen and women to stop in St. Anthony for supplies, was so successful that this tiny town decided to prepare and serve a full breakfast of pancakes, sausage, hash browns and beverages for hungry travelers every year. By 1966, 10,000 people were served over the course of one day, more than three times the current population of the town. Today, about 5,000 people a year get to enjoy the great food and super hospitality of this small town in southeast Idaho that serves as a gateway to the Snake River and some of the best fishing in the West.

I congratulate the St. Anthony Chamber of Commerce and all of the volunteers who this year and in years past have come together to give people a smile, laughter and a delicious hot breakfast.

Mr. President, today I would like to recognize the outstanding efforts of a group of young Idahoans from Madison High School in Rexburg, ID. These young men and women came to Washington, D.C., to represent my State in the national finals of the ``We the People: the Citizen and the Constitution'' program. They represented Idaho well and are a tribute to our State's youth.

The national finals include a mock congressional hearing which gives the students the opportunity to translate their specialized learning in history, social studies, government and civics into action. As they use their newly-gained knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to examine, counter and defend issues facing America today, they come to appreciate the timeless nature of this great document. This experience gives students the opportunity to apply civic values to real-life challenges and will serve them in whatever they choose to do after they graduate from high school.

Idaho can be proud of the growth of civic virtue in these young people. As they look beyond themselves to the realm of the public good, Idaho and America will benefit as these individuals develop into responsible, intelligent citizens who practice discernment in judgment in matters of concern to our State and Nation. In the future, these student citizens will be more inclined to exhibit leadership faithful to the ideals upon which our country was built and consonant with the notions of liberty, freedom, justice and rule of law.

Mr. President, Idaho's small businesses make up over 95 percent of total businesses in the State. New companies launch their products and services every day. These businesses are the lifeblood of Idaho's economy and their existence indicates the overwhelming entrepreneurship that abides in our communities large and small. A unique public-private partnership between the Idaho National Lab, Boise State University, and the Idaho Department of Commerce and Labor is helping these vital organs of Idaho's economy grow and function to their best potential. The Small Business Administration recently recognized this effort, giving Idaho TechConnect a national ``Best Practices'' award at an economic development conference here in Washington.

Idaho TechConnect has been instrumental in providing small high tech business entrepreneurs with development assistance, and facilities and services to assess the progress and direction of their business expansion. The partnerships with industry and higher education provide these ventures with inspiration, innovation, outside experience and consultation from those in academia as well as the established and thriving high tech industry in Idaho.

Sharing resources, whether intellectual or tangible, provides outcomes that are productive and long lasting. The people and organizations involved with Idaho TechConnect are to be commended on their commitment to our State's economy and by extension, communities and families. This tremendous honor by SBA is most certainly well deserved.

Mr. President, I am honored to recognize a truly remarkable individual today. Gail Chumbley is a history teacher at Eagle High School in Eagle, ID. A high school history teacher; there are many individuals who can claim this job title but few who have done so much. Gail is an amazing teacher, passionately devoted to teaching our American experience to her students. Not only does she teach about events in our Nation's history, she has ventured into the next realm, moving the tenets of American citizenship into the real world for her students.

I first heard of Gail's efforts 4 years ago when she became actively involved in the Library of Congress's Veterans Oral History Project four years ago. At that time, she had organized the recording of over 300 oral histories for Eagle High School's library alone. She expanded the effort to include other Idaho schools and collaborated with local civics groups to record literally hundreds more interviews that went to both the Eagle High School archives and the Idaho Oral History Center. One of the most significant accomplishments of Gail and her students was their participation in the Veterans Stand Down in Boise where homeless veterans were given the opportunity to record interviews. Her efforts were not confined to veterans of past wars. Gail and her students also have sent gift boxes and cards to our current service women and men in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002. She was instrumental in making Eagle High School the top school donor for the World War II Memorial, with a donation of close to $25,000. The list of her accomplishments, enhanced further with her national recognition by the Daughters of

the American Revolution this year is long, but that is not the focus of my remarks today.

Gail has turned the teaching of history and civics into the action of patriotism. Perhaps the most compelling and significant accomplishment of Gail Chumbley is not her esteemed list of awards and honors, which are many and richly-deserved. Her most important contribution is her role in creating a sense of citizenship within the hearts and intellect of many Idaho young people. This citizenship lives on in these students as they grow into adulthood and manifests itself in their actions, commitments and convictions. It is an entity that grows exponentially and of its own volition, eclipsing plaques, certificates and statuettes. These gather dust, but what they represent are the pillars upon which our country stands firm. This living citizenship is immortalized by the marbled statues of men and women not far from here, and in words carved of the same.

I honor Gail Chumbley today: American patriot, exemplary citizen and role model for all of us.

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

Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to discuss the issue that seems to be the major topic of debate now in the Senate. It is that of the question of how we approach the nomination and confirmation of judges.

Frankly, I think that the level of hostility and the level of debate that has increased around this issue is becoming alarming to the American people--not so much necessarily because of their objection or concern about the various positions being taken but because of the concern about how the Senate is running, the question of whether we in the Senate are working on the business of the American people in a way that is in the best interest of public discourse, or whether the dynamic in the Senate is deteriorating into a highly partisan, highly personal, and highly difficult climate in which we are increasingly facing gridlock.

Mr. President, I would like to go back through the debate because a lot has been said about what the role of the filibuster is as we approach the issue of confirmation of judges. I believe it is important because, frankly, I notice in some of the advertising that

is going on across the country right now that the argument being made seems to be that the filibuster was established in the Constitution by our Founding Fathers as one of the checks and balances of our system.

The reality is that from 1789 until 1806, the Senate did not have anything close to a filibuster. In fact, the Senate had the traditional motion for the previous question in its rules, which, for those who don't follow these things closely, meant that a majority could close debate on any issue when there was a motion to proceed to a vote. The majority could close the debate.

So, clearly, there is no mention of the filibuster in the Constitution and, clearly, until at least 1806 there was no possibility for utilization of the filibuster in the Senate. Even after 1806, when for other reasons the Senate eliminated the motion for the previous question, the idea of filibustering never really took hold in the Senate until much later. In fact, it was about the 1840s when a group of Senators realized that under the rules there was no way for them to be stopped from debating, and they basically started the idea of filibustering and approaching the management of issues in the Senate by utilization of the tool of filibustering--namely, refusing to stop debating and let the Senate move on to a vote.

Even though that practice started in the 1840s, it was used very sparingly and over the years really wasn't that big of a problem. When Senators tried it, they worked out issues they were raising, and issues were resolved. The Senate never really adopted a cloture rule until the 1917 timeframe. The cloture rule, for those who don't follow Senate procedure that closely, is the rule by which the Senate tries to stop a filibuster. It has been in different forms over the years, but in its current form--since 1917, it has evolved--it requires 60 votes in the Senate to adopt cloture, which means that we will then go into a process which will eventually wind down debate on a bill and move us to a point where we can vote on a matter. So even in 1917, when the original cloture rule was adopted, it didn't really mention judicial nominations, because at that point the Senate didn't really contemplate the use of the filibuster on judicial nominations.

The cloture rule was rewritten in 1949. At that time, it was expanded to include all matters which technically included judicial nominations. But even after 1949, filibusters were rarely, if ever, even tried on judicial nominations; and when they were tried on judicial nominations, with one exception, when both parties supported the filibuster, even when filibusters were tried on judicial nominations, they were stopped. Never, until this last Congress, the Congress previous to this, with that one exception I mentioned when both parties supported it, did the Senate support the utilization of a filibuster on the nomination of a judge.

In the last couple of years, we have seen an increasing and frequent utilization of filibusters for nominations on the judiciary. That is what brought us to this battle right now. The question the Senate is grappling with and which the American people, I believe, are justifiably very concerned about is, What should the role of the Senate be? What should the procedure of the Senate be when considering judicial nominations?

That takes us, in my opinion, back to the U.S. Constitution. In article II of the U.S. Constitution, which is the core around which this debate should focus, it provides that the President shall nominate and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint judges of the Supreme Court and all other officers of the United States, which includes judges of the other courts. The President shall nominate and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint. So the question there is, Does the Constitution absolutely prohibit a filibuster? No. Does the Constitution absolutely authorize filibusters? No. The Constitution simply says the President shall nominate and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, he shall appoint judges.

Our job now is to determine how to run the rules of the Senate in the closest accommodation to the spirit of the Constitution of the United States.

The question, as I see it, is, Does the Constitution contemplate that the President is entitled to a vote on his nominees? And if so, is that vote a majority vote or is it a vote of a supermajority, like 60, or two-thirds? It has been argued on the floor today that all the Constitution contemplates is some kind of a vote, whether it be a 60- vote supermajority, a two-thirds vote, or a majority vote, that the Senate can decide, but all the Constitution contemplates is some kind of a vote.

I disagree. I believe the Constitution contemplated that by a majority vote the Senate would give its advice and consent. I believe the best way to operate this Senate is to utilize the principle of advice and consent as one in which we should give the President an up- or-down vote on those nominees who are able to get sufficient support to get out of the Judiciary Committee to the floor of the Senate. As I say, historically, never, until the last Congress, has the Senate operated in any other way.

There are those who have tried filibusters, but never have just 41 Senators stood solidly together and said: No, we will not allow a nominee who has enough majority support to get to the floor of the Senate to have a vote.

There are those who are saying the President is trying to pack the Court and that the President is trying to change the dynamics of the judiciary with people who are out of the mainstream. Again, I do not believe anything could be further from the truth.

There has been a lot of debate on this floor over the last few weeks about these nominees, but let's look at a couple of these nominees to see what it is we are talking about.

One of the filibustered nominees is Justice Priscilla Owen. She has served on the Texas Supreme Court since 1995. In 2000, Justice Owen was overwhelmingly reelected to a second term on that court, receiving 84 percent of the public vote. I do not think that is out of the mainstream.

During her 2000 election bid, every major newspaper in Texas endorsed her. Before joining the supreme court, she was a partner with a well- respected Texas law firm, having practiced law for 17 years.

Justice Owen has significant bipartisan support in Texas, including three former Democratic judges on the Texas Supreme Court and a bipartisan group of 15 past presidents of the State bar of Texas.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with her philosophy, one cannot argue that she is not mainstream. In fact, a bipartisan group of 15 former presidents of the State bar of Texas--that bipartisan group about which I talked--states:

Although we profess different party affiliations and span

the spectrum of legal and policy issues, we stand united in

affirming that Justice Owen is a truly unique and outstanding

candidate to appointment to the Fifth Circuit [Court of

Appeals].

They go on to say she has all the qualities to be a good independent judge.

Another who is being attacked is the Honorable Janice Rogers Brown, a nominee from the Supreme Court of California to be on the District of Columbia Circuit Court. In her 9 years on the California Supreme Court, Justice Brown has earned the reputation of being a brilliant and a fair justice who rules on the law.

Her nomination has received broad support from across the political spectrum, and she also stood for reelection in the California judicial system where she received 76 percent of the public vote in California the last time she was on the ballot, which belies the notion that she could be out of the mainstream.

She has dedicated over 25 years of her legal career to public service and she, too, is supported by a broad array of bipartisan jurists and legal scholars in her State.

Let me talk about one more, a nominee from my State, the State of Idaho, William Myers, who has been nominated to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Bill Myers is a former Solicitor of the Department of Interior and is a highly respected attorney who has extensive experience in the fields of natural resources, public lands, and environmental law. He actually was confirmed by this Senate by unanimous consent when he was confirmed to serve as Solicitor of the Department of Interior.

Before coming to the Department of Interior, he practiced at one of the most respected law firms in the Rocky Mountain region, and he has a rich history of service in public offices. He is a

very avid outdoorsman and conservationist and has himself wide support from bipartisan interests. In fact, the former Democratic Governor of Idaho, Cecil Andrus, indicated he is one who deserves our support, has the integrity, judicial temperament, and experience to be a good judge.

Former Democratic Wyoming Governor Mike Sullivan, who also served as U.S. Ambassador to Ireland under the Clinton administration, endorsed Mr. Myers, saying he is ``a thoughtful, well-grounded attorney who has reflected by his career achievements a commitment to excellence.''

My point in reviewing these three candidates, because my time is limited today, is to show that although there is an argument that the President is trying to submit candidates who are not in the mainstream, the argument does not fit the facts. What is happening is President Bush is being denied the opportunity for even a vote on his nominees to be the judges on the various circuit courts of this country.

I think we ought to come back to the Constitution and to the initial question which I pose: What does the Constitution of the United States contemplate in terms of how the Senate should operate when it fills its role as providing advice and consent in the nomination and appointment of judges?

I think it is very important to note that what we are debating is not the elimination of the filibuster. We have an Executive Calendar and a legislative calendar in the Senate, and the proposal is to address the manner in which filibusters are utilized only on a portion of the Executive calendar. The Executive calendar is that part of our business in which the Senate deals under the Constitution with the executive business of the President with the Senate.

We are suggesting our rules should contemplate that when the Constitution gives the President business to conduct with the Senate and says the Senate should give its advice and consent on the President's nominations, the Senate's rules should not prohibit the President from getting a vote.

All we are asking, not that these nominations be all unanimously approved or automatically accepted, is the President get a vote up or down on his nominees.

It is my hope we will not have to get to the point where on the Senate floor we have a protracted and bitter battle. We have an opportunity to discuss these matters among ourselves and try to do what the American people expect of us, and that is to bring more comity to the Senate in our individual relations among each other.

I believe there is room for finding a compromise that can resolve this issue in a way that will bring dignity and respect to the Senate and will enable us to fulfill the spirit of what the Constitution contemplates when it says the Senate should provide its advice and consent to the nominations of the President.

Mr. President, I thank you for my time, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a native Idahoan who has distinguished himself in the military, public service, and as a religious contributor. T. LaMar Sleight retired recently from his position as the Director of International and Government Affairs for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. LaMar is a native of Idaho, born in Montpelier and educated in Preston. In his years of public service, he has set a fine example of leadership and dedication.

LaMar served more than 34 years in the military, retiring in 1993 as a Colonel in the United States Army. He joined the National Guard at age 18. Eventually the Guard sent him to OCS and he joined the Army. He was awarded three awards of the Legion of Merit and the Bronze Star medal. His overseas assignments took him to Korea, Vietnam and Germany. Assignments closer to home include Oklahoma, Georgia, Nebraska, and Washington, DC. His military career clearly influenced his organized and structured leadership style.

Upon retiring from the military, LaMar took up the challenging position as the Director of International and Government Affairs for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. He has been an outstanding liaison for the LDS Church and the international community. I have enjoyed my interaction with him during my tenure in Congress, which extends back more than 12 years. He has a calming, measured demeanor and could always be counted on to provide a full view of any issue that was being discussed.

No doubt LaMar is balancing his ongoing volunteer service to his church with lots and lots of golf. With 6 children and 11 grandchildren, there is also a lot of family time and experiences ahead. I wish him the best as he undertakes this change in his life.

Mr. President, in the 1950s and 1960s, this country was in the midst of a cold war and arms race, a race to perfect the hydrogen bomb. To win the race, nuclear weapons technology was developed using above ground testing in Idaho's neighbor to the south, Nevada. During these tests, Idahoans recount going outside in the evenings to look at the beautiful sunsets caused by the testing. Unfortunately and unbeknown to them, these skies were filled with dangerous radiation that very much elevated their exposure and subsequent risk of developing cancer.

I will not debate whether government authorities adequately knew the extent of the long-term dangers to radiation exposure. However, after a long and protracted discussion in this very chamber, Congress did recognize that what had occurred during this time of nuclear testing and rightly came forward providing for compensation through the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990 (RECA). This bill said that if you lived in certain counties in certain States during a certain period of time and had specified diseases, you were eligible for compensation. It is now time to review that program and make it work for everyone who may have become ill because of radiation fall-out exposure.

The criteria established in the Act were driven by limited scientific knowledge and political expediency. This was recognized in 1999, when a group of Senators, led by Senator Hatch, amended RECA to include additional counties in Arizona. During the floor debate at the time, Senator Hatch said, ``Through advances in science, we now know so much more about the effects of radiation than we did in the late 1950s and 1960s. Our current state of scientific knowledge allows us to pinpoint with more accuracy which diseases are reasonably believed to be related to radiation exposure, and that is what necessitated the legislation we are considering today.''

But the truth is even more encompassing than a few more counties. According to a report from the National Academies of Sciences, a report commissioned by Congress, radiation fall-out didn't know any arbitrary geographic boundaries. It didn't stop because it crossed a State or county line. The NAS report, released last month, clearly demonstrated that we continue to be wide of the mark in who is eligible for compensation and that is why I am introducing legislation today to bring RECA back on course. Information used to establish who would be eligible for compensation failed to recognize that four counties in Idaho ranked in the top five in having the highest per capita thyroid dosage of radiation in the nation, more than any county currently recognized by RECA for eligibility. This clear inequity must be rectified; Idaho has a documented history of high cancer rates in people who lived in these areas during testing.

At this time I would like to thank people like Sheri Garmon, Kathy Skippen, Tona Henderson, and so many others who have spent time and energy on this issue. Some like Sheri are fighting multiple cancers and yet have taken the time to pursue their belief that they to deserved to be eligible for the RECA program. The NAS report recognizes that the RECA program needs revamping, but Idahoans deserve equal treatment with those in Utah, Arizona, and Nevada now. They should not have to wait while Congress comes up with a better way to administer this program. That is why I am introducing legislation today that will extend the present program to cover the full State of Idaho. And I am encouraging my colleagues to work with me on making the entire RECA program more comprehensive for the future.

It is the right thing to do.

Mr. President, in the 1950s and 1960s, this country was in the midst of a cold war and arms race, a race to perfect the hydrogen bomb. To win the race, nuclear weapons technology was developed using above ground testing in Idaho's neighbor to the south, Nevada. During these tests, Idahoans recount going outside in the evenings to look at the beautiful sunsets caused by the testing. Unfortunately and unbeknown to them, these skies were filled with dangerous radiation that very much elevated their exposure and subsequent risk of developing cancer.

I will not debate whether government authorities adequately knew the extent of the long-term dangers to radiation exposure. However, after a long and protracted discussion in this very chamber, Congress did recognize that what had occurred during this time of nuclear testing and rightly came forward providing for compensation through the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990 (RECA). This bill said that if you lived in certain counties in certain States during a certain period of time and had specified diseases, you were eligible for compensation. It is now time to review that program and make it work for everyone who may have become ill because of radiation fall-out exposure.

The criteria established in the Act were driven by limited scientific knowledge and political expediency. This was recognized in 1999, when a group of Senators, led by Senator Hatch, amended RECA to include additional counties in Arizona. During the floor debate at the time, Senator Hatch said, ``Through advances in science, we now know so much more about the effects of radiation than we did in the late 1950s and 1960s. Our current state of scientific knowledge allows us to pinpoint with more accuracy which diseases are reasonably believed to be related to radiation exposure, and that is what necessitated the legislation we are considering today.''

But the truth is even more encompassing than a few more counties. According to a report from the National Academies of Sciences, a report commissioned by Congress, radiation fall-out didn't know any arbitrary geographic boundaries. It didn't stop because it crossed a State or county line. The NAS report, released last month, clearly demonstrated that we continue to be wide of the mark in who is eligible for compensation and that is why I am introducing legislation today to bring RECA back on course. Information used to establish who would be eligible for compensation failed to recognize that four counties in Idaho ranked in the top five in having the highest per capita thyroid dosage of radiation in the nation, more than any county currently recognized by RECA for eligibility. This clear inequity must be rectified; Idaho has a documented history of high cancer rates in people who lived in these areas during testing.

At this time I would like to thank people like Sheri Garmon, Kathy Skippen, Tona Henderson, and so many others who have spent time and energy on this issue. Some like Sheri are fighting multiple cancers and yet have taken the time to pursue their belief that they to deserved to be eligible for the RECA program. The NAS report recognizes that the RECA program needs revamping, but Idahoans deserve equal treatment with those in Utah, Arizona, and Nevada now. They should not have to wait while Congress comes up with a better way to administer this program. That is why I am introducing legislation today that will extend the present program to cover the full State of Idaho. And I am encouraging my colleagues to work with me on making the entire RECA program more comprehensive for the future.

It is the right thing to do.

Mr. President, as Members of Congress, we have the unique opportunity to participate in special exchange programs in which talented individuals from other branches of government can work temporarily in our offices as legislative fellows or detailees. These initiatives promote efficiency in the business of government by developing mutually beneficial relationships between the executive and legislative branches of government.

As Members, we have the opportunity to meet these experts and benefit from their insight, knowledge and experience. One such expert in my office just celebrated 26 years of service to the USDA Forest Service. Kenneth Karkula is currently serving a 1-year fellowship in my office through the Brookings Institute. Building on his extensive experience, he has made invaluable contributions to several issues important to Idaho in the area of natural resources, the environment and energy. In the short time since his arrival, he has become an invaluable asset to my staff, filling in during recent permanent staff vacancies and being willing to do whatever is asked of him.

Ken is on detail from his position as National Concessions Program Manager for the Forest Service. His public service career started when he fought wildland fires in the late 1970s to the mid-1980s. He then served as a District Resource Staff Officer in Arizona and New Mexico and, in 1992, moved to the position of Forest Recreation Staff Officer in Lake Tahoe, CA. In 1996, he took his current position at the USDA Forest Service Headquarters, a tremendous culmination of many hard- working years. Ken's knowledge of U.S. environmental and Federal land management policies, coupled with his experience in on-the-ground implementation of these policies over the years, gives him a unique and critical perspective of Federal land management issues that benefit me as I help explore updating and enhancing decades-old environmental policies and practices.

I congratulate Ken on his many years of successful work and dedication to the American public.