Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to continue for what will be a relatively short while as in morning business.

Mr. President, the Senator from North Dakota is absolutely right. Having managed a number of bills, I know that sometimes it is hard to get people with amendments to come forth. I hope they do. Once this bill is finished, we will go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or, as we know it here, FISA. It is intended to protect both our national security and also the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans. We are considering amendments to that important act that will provide new flexibility to our intelligence community. We all support surveillance authority. With terrorists plotting against us and talking about it, we want to be able to use all the various electronic and other means to find out what they are saying. Unlike some in the administration who say we are dealing with an antiquated law, we have updated this act many times, probably 30 or more times since its historic passage after intelligence abuses of earlier decades.

I came here 34 years ago. I well remember that this Nation was still reeling from the excesses of the COINTELPRO when people were being spied on by their Government simply because they disagreed with what the Government was doing; in this case, the war in Vietnam. We enacted FISA so we could do the legitimate thing of actually spying on people who wanted to do harm to the United States at the time of the Cold War, when we had adversaries all over the world. We also wanted to make sure that Americans who were minding their own business, not doing anything illegal, wouldn't be spied upon.

We rushed the so-called Protect America Act through the Senate just before the August recess and with it were a number of excesses. They came about because the administration broke agreements it had reached with congressional leaders. The bill was hurriedly passed under intense partisan pressure from the administration. In fact, the pressure was so strong, they made it very clear why they were willing to break agreements with those Republicans and Democrats who had been working together to try to craft a bill that would protect America's interests but also protect the privacy of individual Americans.

So we passed a bill that provides sweeping new powers to the Government to engage in surveillance, without a warrant, of international calls to and from the United States involving Americans, and it provided no meaningful protection for the privacy and civil liberties of the Americans who were on those calls. It could be an American calling a member of their family studying overseas. It could be a business person who, as they travel around to various companies they represent, ends up having their telephone calls intercepted.

But before that flawed bill passed--the one that came about because of the broken agreements by the administration--Senator Rockefeller and I and several others in the House and Senate worked hard, in good faith with the administration, to craft legislation that solved an identified problem but, as I said, protected America's privacy and liberties.

Just before the August recess the administration decided instead to ram through its version of the Protect America Act with excessive grants of Government authority and without any accountability or checks and balances. They did this after 6 years of breaking the law through secret warrantless wiretapping programs. It was one of the most egregious things I have seen in my 34 years in the Senate. First they violate the law, and then instead of being held accountable, they ram through a law designed to allow them to continue those actions. Some of us saw it for what it was and voted against it. Both Senators from Vermont voted against it. We are from a State that borders a foreign country. We are concerned about our security, but we are also concerned about our liberties and our privacy.

We did manage to include 6-month sunset in the Protect America Act so we would have a chance to revisit this matter and do it right. The Senate Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee, as well as our House counterparts, have spent the past month considering changes. In the Senate Judiciary Committee we held open hearings. We had more briefings than I can even count and meetings with the administration, with people in the intelligence service, with people at the CIA, NSA, and others. We considered legislative language in a number of open business meetings where Senators from across the political spectrum could be heard. Then we reported a good bill to the Senate before Thanksgiving.

The bill we are now considering will permit the Government, while targeting overseas, to review more Americans' communications with less court supervision than ever before. I support surveillance of those who might do us harm, but we also have to protect Americans' liberties. Attorney General Mukasey said at his nomination hearing that ``protecting civil liberties, and people's confidence that those liberties are protected, is a part of protecting national security.'' Let me repeat what the new Attorney General said:

Protecting civil liberties, and people's confidence that

those liberties are protected, is a part of protecting

national security.

I agree with him. That is what the Judiciary Committee bill does. I commend the House of Representatives for passing a bill, the RESTORE Act, that takes a balanced approach to these issues and allows the intelligence community great flexibility to conduct surveillance of overseas targets but also provides oversight and protection for Americans' civil liberties. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has also worked hard. I know Chairman Rockefeller was as disappointed as I at the administration's partisan maneuvering just before the August recess. After being here through six administrations, it has always been my experience, with Republican or Democratic administrations at certain points, when you are negotiating a key piece of legislation with the administration, you have to rely on them to keep their word and be honest with you, as they have to rely on you to keep your word and be honest with them. Through six administrations, 34 years, I can never remember a time where an administration was less truthful or flatly broke their word in the way this one did.

I commended the efforts of Senator Rockefeller and those working with him. I do so again now. I believe both he and I want surveillance but we want

surveillance with oversight and accountability within the law. I also want to praise our joint members. In the Judiciary Committee we have, by practice, a certain number of members who serve on both Judiciary and Intelligence for obvious reasons. The ranking member of Judiciary and I, of course, have access to a great deal of intelligence whenever we have requested it, but that is on an ongoing basis.

Senators Feinstein, Feingold, and Whitehouse contributed so much to the work of the Judiciary Committee. They worked with me to author many of the additional protections we adopted and reported. They had worked on the bill in the Intelligence Committee and then worked with us. These Senators and others on the Judiciary Committee worked hard to craft amendments that will preserve the basic structure and authority proposed in the bill reported by the Select Committee on Intelligence, but then they added those crucial protections for Americans, the part the Judiciary Committee, because of our oversight of courts, worries about.

I believe we need to do more than the bill initially reported by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence does to protect the rights of Americans. I know the chairman of that committee joins with me to support many of the Judiciary Committee's improvements.

Let me cite briefly what they are. The Judiciary bill, for example, makes clear that the Government cannot claim authority to operate outside the law outside of FISA--by alluding to other legislative measures never intended to provide that authority.

I will give you an example of what happened. The House and the Senate passed an authorization for the use of military force. We did this right after September 11. It was authorization to go in and capture Osama bin Laden--the man who engineered 9/11, is still loose, and taunts us periodically. But what happened? The administration was so hellbent on getting into Iraq that when they had Osama bin Laden cornered, they withdrew their forces and let him get away so they could invade Iraq--a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Now they say that authorization allowed them to wiretap Americans without a warrant. I have heard some strange, convoluted, cockamamie arguments before in my life. This one takes the cake.

I introduced a resolution on this in the last Congress when we first heard this canard. We authorized going after Osama bin Laden, but the Senate did not authorize--explicitly or implicitly--the warrantless wiretapping of Americans. By their logic, they could also say we authorized the warrantless search of the distinguished Presiding Officer's home or my home. This body did no such thing, but the administration still is clinging to their phony legal argument.

The Judiciary bill would prevent that dangerous contention with strong language that reaffirms that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is the exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes.

The Judiciary Committee's amendment would also provide a more meaningful role for the FISA court to oversee this new surveillance authority. The FISA court is a critical independent check on Government excess in the sensitive area of electronic surveillance. The administration claims that of course the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court can look at what they are doing, they just don't want the court to be able to do anything about it. No. The Judiciary Committee says the court should be able to look at what they are doing and should be able to stop them if they are breaking the law. In this Nation we fought a revolution over 200 years ago to have that right.

With the authority of a majority of the Judiciary Committee members, I am going to offer a revised version of the Committee's amendment that makes some changes to address technical issues and also to address some of the claims the administration has made about our substitute.

For example, in response to concerns raised by the administration in its Statement of Administration Policy, we have revised the exclusivity provision to ensure that we are not overextending the scope of FISA. We have also revised the provision concerning stay of decisions of the FISA Court pending appeal, the provision clarifying that the bill does not permit bulk collection of communications into or out of the United States, and a few other provisions.

I believe these revisions make the Judiciary Committee's product even stronger, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Now, in the bill we have a title I, a title II. Title II in the Intelligence bill talks about retroactive immunity. We do not address that in the Judiciary Committee's bill, but I do strongly oppose the bill reported by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in that area. Their bill would grant blanket retroactive immunity to telecommunications carriers for their warrantless surveillance activities from 2001 through earlier this year. This surveillance was contrary to FISA and violated the privacy rights of Americans.

The administration violated FISA for more than 5 years. They got caught. If they had not gotten caught, they probably would still be doing it. But when the public found out about the President's illegal surveillance of Americans, the administration and the telephone companies were sued by citizens who believe their privacy and their rights were violated.

Now the administration is trying to get this Congress to terminate those lawsuits. It is not that they are worried about the telephone companies. They are not as concerned about the telephone companies as they are about insulating themselves from accountability.

This is an administration that does not want us to ask them anything, and they do not want to tell us anything. Interesting policy. If you do ask them, they are not going to tell you. If they do tell you, it appears oftentimes they do not tell you the truth.

Now, the rule of law is fundamental to our system. It has helped us maintain the greatest democracy we have ever seen in our lifetimes. But in conducting warrantless surveillance, the administration showed flagrant disrespect for the rule of law. It is like the King of France, who once said: ``L'Etat, c'est moi.'' ``The state is me.'' They are saying: What we want to do is what we will do. And if we want to do it, the law is irrelevant.

I cannot accept that.

The administration relied on legal opinions that were prepared in secret and shown only to a tiny group of like-minded officials who made sure they got the advice they wanted--advice that, when it saw the light of day, people said: How could anybody possibly write a legal memorandum like that?

Jack Goldsmith, who came in briefly to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, described the program as a ``legal mess.'' He is a conservative Republican. He looked at this and said: It is a legal mess. Now, the administration does not want a court to get a chance to look at this legal mess. Retroactive immunity would assure that they get their wish and that nobody could ask how and why they broke the law.

Frankly, I do not believe anybody is above the law. I do not believe a President is, I do not believe a Senator is, I do not believe anybody is.

I do not believe that Congress can or should seek to take rights and legal claims from those already harmed. I support the efforts of Senators Specter and Whitehouse to use the legal concept of substitution to place the Government in the shoes of the private defendants who acted at its behest and to let it assume full responsibility for the illegal conduct.

Although my preference, of course, is to allow the lawsuits to go forward as they are, I believe the substitution alternative is effective. It is far preferable to retroactive immunity, and it allows this country to find out what happened.

Keep in mind why we have FISA. Congress passed that law only after we discovered the abuses of J. Edgar Hoover's FBI. Through the COINTEL Program, Hoover spied on Americans who objected and spoke out against the war in Vietnam--which pretty well involved 100 percent of the Vermont delegation in Congress.

It is like the Department of Defense today that is going around videotaping Quakers protesting the war. Quakers

always protest the war. But this administration seems to think, if you disagree with them, somehow you are an enemy of the country and they can justify spying on you. That is why we put these laws in place. Is memory so short around here? Is memory so short or are we so frightened by 9/11 that we are willing to throw away everything this country fought for and everything that has made this country survive as long as it has?

We were told this building was targeted by terrorists. I proudly come into this building every day to go to work. It is the highlight of my life, other than my wife and my family. But I come in here because I believe 100 Members of the Senate can be the conscience of the Nation. We can protect Americans' rights, we can protect those things that our forefathers fought a revolution for, that we fought a civil war to protect, that we fought two World Wars to protect. Now we are going to throw it away because of a group of terrorists? This is ``Alice in Wonderland.''

So as we debate these issues, let's keep in mind the reason we have FISA in the first place. As I said, back in the 1970s we learned the painful lesson that powerful surveillance tools, without adequate oversight or the checks and balances of judicial review, lead to abuses of the rights of the American people.

So I hope this debate will provide us with an opportunity to show the American people what we stand for. We can show them that we will do all we can to secure their future, but at the same time protect their cherished rights and freedoms. Those are the rights and freedoms that protected past generations and allowed us to have a future. If we do not protect them, what will our children and grandchildren have?

It is incumbent upon us to stand up for this country. When you stand up for this country, it does not mean jingoism, it does not mean sloganeering. It means protecting what is best for this country. If we do that, the terrorists will not win. The United States of America wins. The people who rely on us around the world will win. Our example will be one they will want to follow.

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

Mr. President, as we start a new year--and the Senate starts a new session--the American people have a new law that honors and protects their right to know. I am pleased that during the waning hours of 2007, the President signed the Leahy-Cornyn Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act, the ``OPEN Government Act,'' S. 2488, into law--enacting the first major reforms to the Freedom of Information Act, ``FOIA'' in more than a decade.

Today, our Government is more open and accountable to the American people than it was just a year ago. With the enactment of FOIA reform legislation, the Congress has demanded and won more openness and accountability regarding the activities of the executive branch. I call on the President to vigorously and faithfully execute the OPEN Government Act, and I hope that he will fully enforce this legislation.

Sadly, the early signs from the administration are troubling. Just this week, the administration signaled that it will move the much- needed funding for the Office of Government Information Services created under the OPEN Government Act from the National Archives and Records Administration to the Department of Justice. Such a move is not only contrary to the express intent of the Congress, but it is also contrary to the very purpose of this legislation--to ensure the timely and fair resolution of American's FOIA requests. Given its abysmal record on FOIA compliance during the last 7 years, I hope that the administration will reconsider this unsound decision and enforce this law as the Congress intended.

In addition, for the first time ever under the new law implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, Federal agencies will be required to fully disclose to Congress their use of data mining technology to monitor the activities of ordinary American citizens. I am pleased that this law contains the reforms that I cosponsored last year to require data mining reporting and to strengthen the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.

Surely all of these OPEN Government reforms are cause to celebrate. But there is much more work to be done.

During the second session of the 110th Congress, I intend to work hard to build upon these OPEN Government successes, so that we have a government that is more open and accountable to all Americans. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have made oversight of the FOIA reforms contained in the OPEN Government Act one of my top priorities. I will also continue to work closely with Members on both sides of the aisle and in both Chambers to address the growing and troubling use of FOIA (b)(3) exemptions to withhold information from the American people.

As the son of a Vermont printer, I understand the great value of documenting and preserving our Nation's rich history for future generations, so that our democracy remains open and

free. Next month, I will convene an important hearing of the Judiciary Committee on the Founding Fathers Project and the effort to make the historical writings of our Nation's Founders more accessible and open to the public.

I will also work to ensure Senate passage of the Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007, S. 886 to reverse a troubling Bush administration policy to curtail the disclosure of Presidential records. And I will continue my fight to ensure the public's right to know by urging the prompt consideration and passage of meaningful press shield legislation in the Senate.

More that two centuries ago, Patrick Henry proclaimed that ``[t]he liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.'' I could not agree more. Open government is not a Democratic value, nor a Republican value. It is an American value and an American virtue. In this new year, at this new and historic time for our Nation, I urge all Members to join me in supporting an agenda of an open and transparent Government on behalf of all Americans.

Mr. President, we have a number of Members who are supposed to go to the Davos economic summit tomorrow night, and I would note I have talked with Senator Bennett of Utah, who is the senior Republican on that trip, and the trip that is set to leave tomorrow night will not. We will put it on hold until Thursday, to determine whether we can leave on Thursday.

If I could have the attention of the majority leader for a moment. I appreciate the majority leader has been very clear. I happen to concur with him that this is important and we should finish it. All we want to do is to know how it will go. There is a Judiciary Committee amendment to the bill. I would not anticipate taking a great deal of time on that, but I think the distinguished majority leader is doing the absolute right thing.

He has the worst job in America, trying to accommodate the schedules of 99 other people, plus his own, which usually comes in number 100 out of the 100. I am not in any way suggesting we change for the Davos summit. I will keep in touch with him, Senator Rockefeller, and others as we go forward. If it is possible for us to leave Thursday night, we will be able to leave Thursday night. But I would not suggest the bipartisan delegation go to Davos if this matter is pending.

I appreciate the distinguished leader spending a lot of time on the phone over the weekend and again today and I appreciate his consideration.

Madam President, today, the Senate took an important step forward to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, NICS, the Nation's background check system for gun purchases. Along with Senator Schumer, I have worked hard to craft this compromise legislation that respects the rights of gun owners and, at the same time, makes sure that the NICS system will work more effectively. This compromise has not been easy, as many have strong views on issues surrounding this bill, but working with Senators on both sides of the aisle, we have forged strong, fair legislation to address serious shortcomings in the Federal program. Throughout the process, we have taken great care to make sure Federal law governing who can own or possess a firearm remains unchanged. The Senate language makes clear that the correct records will go into the NICS system, that any records improperly in NICS will be removed promptly, that legal notice and due process considerations will be required in Federal proceedings, and that the States have sufficient support to meet the goals of the bill. We have been responsive to the legitimate concerns of veterans and advocates on both sides of the issue, and at the same time, we have worked hard to correct weaknesses that have been exposed by the tragic events of the last year.

The senseless loss of life at Virginia Tech this spring revealed serious flaws in the NICS system, particularly in the transfer of mental health information

relevant to gun purchases between the States and the Federal Government. Deficiencies in the current NICS system, including a significant lack of funding, permitted the perpetrator of this terrible crime to obtain firearms and ammunition despite having a mental health history that made him ineligible to buy or possess a firearm under Federal law. He was able to pass a background check and purchase the weapons he used in his attacks because data was missing from the NICS system.

In response to this devastating tragedy, the Judiciary Committee worked hard to produce a comprehensive legislative proposal related to issues of school safety, and in August unanimously reported the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act of 2007, SSLEIA, to the full Senate. As part of this legislative package, we drafted title II of SSLEIA to include an amended version of the NICS Amendment Improvement Act of 2007, H.R. 2640, that passed the House in July. Today, the Senate passed a revision of title II from SSLEIA, as the Leahy-Schumer amendment to H.R. 2640, which closes the gaps in the NICS system that allowed the purchase of the firearms that were used in the Virginia Tech killings. I hope the House of Representatives will take up and pass H.R. 2640, as amended, as soon as possible.

The Leahy-Schumer amendment largely mirrors the language of H.R. 2640 as passed by the House. But it also makes modest but important changes to that bill in order to ensure this new law works effectively and fairly for all Americans. It creates a legal regime where the reporting of disqualifying mental health records, both at the State and Federal levels, will be improved. This bill will also require Federal agencies to report mental health and other disqualifying records into NICS and would create significant new incentives for States to report this same information. These basic features of the amendment are the same as in the House bill. Additionally, the bill contains provisions directing Federal agencies to establish relief from disabilities programs through which individuals who have overcome a disqualifying mental illness or disability may reclaim their rights, and urges the States to do the same.

As I reviewed this issue, however, I determined that additional changes were necessary both to improve the NICS system further and to better enable States like Vermont to implement these improvements. By tempering the penalties for insufficient participation by the States in meeting the bill's goals, and increasing incentives for full participation, I am hopeful that the bill will strengthen the partnership between Federal and State authorities in search of a common goal. The NICS system is only as good as the information that is reported into it, and to achieve success in improving NICS, we must recognize and adequately support the States in this challenging undertaking.

I want to thank Paco Aumond, director of Criminal Justice Services at the Vermont Department of Public Safety, for working with me to identify those changes in the legislation to ensure that Vermont and the many similarly situated States will be more easily able to make the comprehensive improvements necessary for a more effective NICS system.

Nothing can bring back the lives tragically lost at Virginia Tech, and no legislation can be a panacea, but the bill we pass today will begin to repair and restore our faith in the NICS system and may help prevent similar tragedies in the future.

Mr. President, earlier this week, the Senate passed a compromise version of the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007. It took several months to negotiate the minor differences between the House and the Senate bills, simply because we were not allowed to go to conference. Then we had to work for over a month to remove a hold placed on the legislation. When it finally passed the Senate on Monday night, we expected that the House of Representatives would pass it without delay. Unfortunately, one of the compromise provisions triggered a problem that would have prevented passage in the House.

We corrected that problem late last night with an enrolling resolution that strikes the provision of section 502 that caused a budgetary problem. Fortunately, we were able to maintain the important provision of life insurance benefits for our dedicated magistrate judges.

I appreciate the work of Senators Specter and Kyl to make sure that we were able to pass this resolution late last night and I look forward to the House of Representatives passing both the resolution and the Court Security Improvement Act without further delay.

I urge the President to sign this vital legislation, introduced 11 months ago, without delay so that we can protect the dedicated judges, and other personnel who serve as part of our Nation's justice system. The security of our Federal judges and our courthouses around the Nation is at stake.

Mr. President, today I would like to take a moment to recognize Dr. Anthony Facui, Director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIAID, for his numerous contributions in medical research and specifically his work on HIV/AIDS, avian flu and anthrax. Even in a city such as Washington, which is filled with driven and motivated people, Dr. Fauci is a cut above. As Director of NIAID, he has worked tirelessly to lead the fight against AIDS and has been instrumental in shaping our understanding of how this disease works. I am proud to have worked with Dr. Fauci and would like to take this opportunity to submit the following article recounting the remarkable work and career of Dr. Fauci for the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to bring to the attention of the Senate an article by Rabbi Michael Cohen who is director of special projects at the Arava Institute for Environmental Studies. Rabbi Cohen recently submitted the article entitled ``The Genesis of Diversity'' to the New York Times. In this article, Rabbi Cohen eloquently reminds us that environmental and biological diversity is not simply a thought or something we simply sit back and observe. Rather we are constant participants in the act of diversity and as such it is our responsibility as human beings to protect our environment. This article serves as a reminder of the importance of preserving environmental and biological diversity during this holiday season.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Rabbi Michael M. Cohen's article entitled ``The Genesis of Diversity'' be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2007, being introduced today by Senators Lieberman and Smith. I cosponsored this legislation in the last Congress and I am pleased to do so again.

This important legislation would provide domestic partners of Federal employees the same protections and benefits afforded to spouses of Federal employees. These benefits, available for both same and opposite-sex domestic partners of Federal employees, would include participation in applicable retirement programs, compensation for work injuries and insurance benefits, including life, Family and Medical Leave and health insurance.

Equal pay for equal work is a cornerstone of our country's bedrock principles, and so too should equal access to important benefits. Insurance benefits, work incentives and retirement options comprise a significant portion of all employee compensation. By not offering domestic partnership benefits to its employees, the Federal government is unfairly withholding these valuable options from dedicated employees across the country.

The idea that benefits should be extended to same sex couples has become increasingly prevalent in America's largest and most successful companies, state and local governments, and in educational institutions. Over half of all Fortune 500 companies provide domestic partner benefits to their employees, up from just 25 percent in 2000. Offering domestic partnership benefits to Federal employees would improve the quality of its workforce, demonstrate its commitment to fairness and equality for all Americans, and bring the Government in line with some of the Nation's largest employers.

Providing benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees is long overdue. It is the right thing to do, it is the sensible step to take in the interest of having a fair and consistent policy, and I hope that the Senate will act quickly on this important legislation.

Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2007, being introduced today by Senators Lieberman and Smith. I cosponsored this legislation in the last Congress and I am pleased to do so again.

This important legislation would provide domestic partners of Federal employees the same protections and benefits afforded to spouses of Federal employees. These benefits, available for both same and opposite-sex domestic partners of Federal employees, would include participation in applicable retirement programs, compensation for work injuries and insurance benefits, including life, Family and Medical Leave and health insurance.

Equal pay for equal work is a cornerstone of our country's bedrock principles, and so too should equal access to important benefits. Insurance benefits, work incentives and retirement options comprise a significant portion of all employee compensation. By not offering domestic partnership benefits to its employees, the Federal government is unfairly withholding these valuable options from dedicated employees across the country.

The idea that benefits should be extended to same sex couples has become increasingly prevalent in America's largest and most successful companies, state and local governments, and in educational institutions. Over half of all Fortune 500 companies provide domestic partner benefits to their employees, up from just 25 percent in 2000. Offering domestic partnership benefits to Federal employees would improve the quality of its workforce, demonstrate its commitment to fairness and equality for all Americans, and bring the Government in line with some of the Nation's largest employers.

Providing benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees is long overdue. It is the right thing to do, it is the sensible step to take in the interest of having a fair and consistent policy, and I hope that the Senate will act quickly on this important legislation.

Mr. President, as the first session of the 110th Congress concludes, we should note that the Senate has worked hard on executive nominations. In addition to confirming 40 lifetime appointments to the Federal bench, we confirmed 21 of this President's nominations for high-ranking executive branch positions, including the confirmations of nine U.S. attorneys, four U.S. marshals, and eight other important positions. We achieved these numbers in a year when our investigation into the mass firing of U.S. attorneys, which triggered a host of resignations by senior White House and Justice Department officials, led the Judiciary Committee to devote significant time to rebuilding the integrity and independence of the Justice Department.

We held hearings on nine executive nominations, including 2-day hearing on the nomination of Michael B. Mukasey to be Attorney General of the United States and another hearing on the nomination of Judge Mark Filip to be Deputy Attorney General of the United States, the top two positions at the Justice Department. We also held hearings on the nominations of Michael J. Sullivan to be Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; Ronald Jay Tenpas to be Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice; Ondray T. Harris to be Director, Community Relations Service, Department of Justice; David W. Hagy, to be Director of the National Institute of Justice, Department of Justice; Scott M. Burns, to be Deputy Director of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President; Cynthia Dyer, to be Director of the Violence Against Women Office, Department of Justice; and Nathan J. Hochman, to be an Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division, Department of Justice.

We favorably reported 20 executive nominations, and the full Senate has proceeded to confirm 21 executive nominations, including 4 additional nominations discharged from the Judiciary Committee and confirmed today, those of Joseph P. Russoniello to be U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California, Cynthia Dyer to be Director of the Violence Against Women Office, Julie L. Myers to be Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security, and Nathan J. Hochman, to be Assistant Attorney General of the Tax Division at the Justice Department.

I understand that Republican holds have prevented the confirmation of Michael J. Sullivan to be Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

I thank the members of the Judiciary Committee for their hard work all year in considering these important nominations. I especially thank those Senators who have given generously of their time to chair confirmation hearings throughout the year.

These nominations come at a critical time for the Nation. Over the course of this year, during which the Judiciary Committee investigated the firing of U.S. attorneys, we faced the most serious threat to the effectiveness and professionalism of the Justice Department since Watergate and the Saturday Night Massacre. Under this President, the Justice Department suffered a severe crisis of leadership that allowed our justice system to be corrupted by political int1uence. The crisis of leadership that led to numerous resignations and has taken a heavy toll on the tradition of independence that has long guided the Department and protected it from political influence. This crisis has also taken a heavy toll on morale at the Department and in confidence among the American people.

Our work to restore the Justice Department also including reporting nine U.S. attorney nominations: James Russell Dedrick to be U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Thomas P. O'Brien to be U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, Edward Meacham Yarbrough to be U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee, Rosa Emilia Rodriguez-Velez to be U.S. attorney for the District of Puerto Rico, Joe W. Stecher to be U.S. attorney for the District of Nebraska, John Wood to be U.S. attorney for the Western District of Missouri, Diane J. Humetewa to be U.S. attorney for the District of Arizona, Gregory A. Brower to be U.S. attorney for the District of Nevada, and Edmund A. Booth, Jr. to be U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Georgia. Some replace outstanding U.S. attorneys who were fired almost a year ago as part of the ill-advised, partisan plan to fire well-performing U.S. attorneys.

We also reported the nominations of four U.S. marshals: Michael David Credo for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Esteban Soto III for the District of Puerto Rico, John Roberts Hackman for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Robert Gideon Howard, Jr., for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

We also reported the nominations of Julie L. Myers to be Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security, Dabney Langhorne Friedrich to be a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, and Beryl A. Howell to be a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

Just this week, with only a few legislative days left to us before the Christmas holidays and the end of this session, our committee held two hearings for executive nominations.

Our track record shows that the Judiciary Committee has been working hard to make progress. Of course, when the White House fails to timely send us nominations to fill vacancies, it makes it that much harder.

The White House has made an abysmal effort to send nominees to the Senate to replace the fired U.S. attorneys and to fill vacancies in those districts and many others. There are now 19 districts with acting or interim U.S. attorneys instead of Senate-confirmed

U.S. attorneys. That is nearly a quarter of all districts. Yet the White House has nominated only 3 people for these 19 spots. Of course, some of these could have been filled a year ago had the White House worked with the Senate.

I have urged the President to fill the remaining executive vacancies with nominees who will restore the independence of Federal law enforcement. Last month, the White House announced with great fanfare its intent to make nominations for key positions at the Department of Justice. It was only weeks later that several of these nominations were sent to the Senate. The delays in sending U.S. attorney nominees and others to the Senate follow the many months of delay where the White House failed to send nominees to fill vacancies that have been open since the summer, or before.

In the course of the committee's investigation into the unprecedented mass firing of U.S. attorneys by the President who appointed them, we uncovered an effort by officials at the White House and the Justice Department to exploit an obscure provision enacted during the PATRIOT Act reauthorization to do an end-run around the Senate's constitutional to confirm U.S. attorneys. The result was the firing of well-performing U.S. attorneys for not bending to the political will of political operatives at the White House.

I have repeatedly emphasized that when it comes to the Justice Department and to the U.S. attorneys in our home States, Senators have a say and a stake in ensuring fairness and independence in order to insulate Federal law enforcement function from untoward political influence. That is why the law and the practice has always been that these appointments require Senate confirmation. The advice and consent check on the appointment power for U.S attorneys is a critical function of the Senate.

I had hoped when the Senate voted overwhelmingly to close the loophole created by the PATRIOT Act when we passed S.214, the Preserving United States Attorneys Independence Act of 2007, by a vote of 97 to 0, it would send a clear message to the administration to make nominations that could receive Senate support and begin to restore an important check on the partisan influence in law enforcement. Yet, even as we closed one loophole, the administration has been exploiting others to continue to avoid coming to the Senate. Under the guidance of an erroneous opinion of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, the administration has been, employing the Vacancies Act authority to use acting U.S. attorneys and the power to appoint interim U.S. attorneys sequentially. They have used this misguided approach to put somebody in place for 330 days without the advice and consent of the Senate. This approach runs afoul of congressional intent and the law.

By not providing us with the nominations to the highest ranking vacancies within the Justice Department and not providing the basic background materials needed to review such nominations before the Thanksgiving recess, the administration has once again foreclosed the opportunity to have these nominees considered by the Senate and in place this year. Those nominations will now necessarily carryover into the next session. That is unfortunate and was unnecessary.

We will continue to make progress when we can, and I will urge the White House to work with the Senate to fill these vacancies.

Madam President, let me note--it has probably been noted here on the floor already--that it is so much nicer to hear your eulogy in person than afterward. In many ways you know it is more heartfelt because the Senator from Mississippi is here and has the ability to correct it, something he would not have 40 years or so from now when he might rejoin his Maker.

I think, though, about Trent Lott. Trent is one of those Senators who has great respect on both sides of the aisle. I think it is because he is from the old school. I do not want to damage his reputation in Mississippi to have one of the more liberal members of the opposite party praise him, but I do it easily. Because, as I told Trent within an hour after he made his announcement--we were on the phone, and I told him that one of the things I liked about him is he followed that rule Mike Mansfield told me my first week here in the Senate: Senators should always keep their word. Every time Senator Lott and I have worked together, to find our way, sometimes through a very tangled parliamentary or legislative morass, we got through because I could always count on him once he made a commitment to keep his word and he would keep his commitment. I think he knows I did the same with him. As Senator Mansfield tried to instruct all of us, those of us who were here at that time, this is the mark of what a real Senator should do. Because while you may disagree on one issue, you are going to be allies the next day on a different issue. And that is what makes the Senate work best.

Marcelle and I have had the opportunity to travel with Trent and Trish, and I must admit this is a great deal of fun. I think he even has some of the photographs I have given him from some of those trips. As they have told me in Vermont, on occasions when he came up, a number of Vermonters came up to me afterward and said, ``Boy, the Senator from Mississippi is really good looking.'' I said: ``Well, yes, he is.'' ``He has got all of that hair.'' I said, ``Yes, he does.'' And they said, ``He can really sing well.'' And I said, ``I do not need to talk with you anymore.''

They would go on. Those trips--and I will close with this--one of the reasons why more of us should take such trips, bipartisan trips, is you find that you have so many things in common. Trish and Marcelle would talk about children and their hopes for them growing up. All four of us would talk about the difficulties in maintaining homes in our home State and in Washington, and doing it if you are not wealthy. We would talk about those things where we felt the Senate should come together. We talked about our backgrounds, our faith, our hopes for this country. I think somebody listening in would have been hard pressed to know which one was the Democrat and which one was the Republican.

I have served all these years with Trent Lott. I will miss him as a colleague, but I might say I will miss him especially as a friend.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I strongly oppose the blanket grant of retroactive immunity in the Senate Intelligence Committee's bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This administration violated FISA by conducting warrantless surveillance of Americans for more than 5 years. They got caught. If they had not gotten caught, they probably would still be doing it.

When the public found out about the President's illegal surveillance of Americans, this administration, and the telephone companies who may have assisted them, were sued by citizens who believed their privacy rights were violated. Now, this administration is trying to convince Congress to terminate those lawsuits, in order to avoid accountability. We should not allow that to happen.

The administration knows that these lawsuits may be the only way that it will ever be called to account for its illegal program of warrantless surveillance and its flagrant disrespect for the rule of law. In running its program of warrantless surveillance this administration relied on legal opinions, prepared in secret by a very small group of like-minded officials, who crafted those opinions to fit the administration's agenda. Jack Goldsmith, who came in briefly to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, described the program as a ``legal mess.'' The administration does not want a court to get a chance to look at that mess, and retroactive immunity would ensure that there is no court scrutiny of their actions.

Senator Rockefeller and I have been consulting since this summer to find ways to obtain access to the information our members need to evaluate the administration's arguments for immunity. The administration has consistently refused to provide this information to the Judiciary Committee. In fact, in light of the administration's stonewalling, Chairman Specter was prepared to subpoena this information from the telephone companies during the last Congress. Finally, we obtained access, not only for the chairman and ranking member, but for members of the Judiciary Committee. However, I believe all Senators should have access to this information, as well as those staff with the appropriate clearance.

Instead of conducting warrantless surveillance in violation of FISA, trying to cover it up, and then trying to justify the coverup, this administration should have come to Congress immediately and asked for the authority it is now claiming it needs.

I have drawn a different conclusion than Senator Rockefeller about retroactive immunity. I oppose granting blanket retroactive immunity. I agree with Senator Specter and many others that blanket retroactive immunity, which would end ongoing lawsuits by legislative fiat, undermines accountability.

Immunity against future litigation is not the issue; the issue is retroactive immunity. If they followed the law, and FISA was not violated, the telephone companies would automatically have immunity and there would be no need for Congress to now duplicate that immunity.

I also would note that title I of the FISA law was changed during markup in the Senate Judiciary Committee. When we come back to this bill next year, it will be my intent to bring much of what we did in the Judiciary Committee before the Senate for a vote.

Again, I want our intelligence agencies to be able to intercept the communications of those people overseas who are trying to do harm to the United States. We all agree with that. But I want to make sure that Americans' communications cannot be acquired by the executive for just any reason. If the Government is going to listen to the communications of Americans it must abide by the legal system that has served us so well throughout the history of this country: court determination of the legality of surveillance before it begins, and court oversight throughout the process.

We hear from the administration and some of our colleagues that we must grant immunity or the telephone companies will no longer cooperate with the Government.

Senators should understand that if we do not grant retroactive immunity, telecommunications carriers will still have immunity for actions they take in the future. If they follow the law, they have immunity.

Instead, I will continue to work with Senator Specter, as well as with Senators Feinstein and Whitehouse to try to craft a more effective alternative to retroactive immunity. We are working with the legal concept of substitution to place the Government in the shoes of the private defendants that acted at its behest, and to let it assume full responsibility for any illegal conduct.

I believe that requires reaching agreement that the lawsuits should be able to reach the merits rather than be short-circuited by Congress, and that the program be subject to judicial review so that its legality can be determined.

Again, this administration violated FISA by conducting warrantless surveillance for more than 5-years. They got caught and they got sued. The administration's insistence that those lawsuits be terminated by congressional action is designed to insulate itself from accountability.

Retroactive immunity would do more than let the carriers off the hook. It would shield this administration from any accountability for conducting surveillance outside the law. It would leave the lawsuits that are now working their way through the courts dead in their tracks and leave Americans whose privacy has been violated no chance to be made whole.

These lawsuits are perhaps the only avenue that exists for an outside review of the Government's actions. That kind of assessment is critical if our Government is to be held accountable. That is why I do not support legislation to terminate these legal challenges and I will vote to strike it.

Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia has the floor, but would he yield me at least a couple minutes in reference to what my colleague from Vermont just spoke about?

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman. I agree with what the Senator from Vermont has just said. In our State, cold weather is not a rarity, it is a fact of life, especially this time of the year. The thermometer on my front steps goes down to 20 below zero. Many times there is no mercury showing because it has gone below that.

Now, that is not theoretical cold, that is cold you die from. I know what it has cost us in filling the tank for my own furnace this year, and I wonder how many people who are not privileged to have the kind of salaries all of us do, how they possibly do it. It is not a matter of just help; this is a matter of life or death. It is not a matter of just comfort. We are not talking about the weather being in the fifties and perhaps you can just put on more sweaters or more coats; we are talking about it being 5 or 10 and 15 and 20 degrees below zero, or even today in Burlington, VT, it began at zero. The temperature was at zero, and then it warmed up from last night. In those situations you die if you don't have heat. It is not a question of being comfortable; you die. It is as simple as that. You die. There are a lot of people who cannot afford this.

I will work with the distinguished Senator from Vermont, as I have with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, in trying to get more money after this bill is passed for LIHEAP. I know the distinguished Senator from West Virginia has supported us every single time on LIHEAP. He also knows what it is like in those rural areas of West Virginia where people barely eke out a living and what happens to them when the snow is falling and it is cold outside and the children are crying because they are cold and the parents are doing everything possible to keep them warm. We will work on this.

I thank the Senator from West Virginia for yielding me the time.

Mr. President, I will hopefully not even need the full hour, and we will be able to go ahead and have the cloture vote. I believe Senator Gregg is going to be managing on the Republican side once he gets here. Hopefully, it will be possible to just yield back all of our time before the end of the hour and go to a vote. I will yield in just about 3 minutes to Senator Murray from Washington State for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, the time has been equally divided, and I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Idaho, when recognized, be able to take 5 minutes from the time set aside on the Republican side.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Congress will send the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act--the ``OPEN Government Act--S. 2488, to the President for signature before the end of this year. With House passage of this bill today, and the Senate's passage of it last Friday, this historic, bipartisan, bicameral legislation becomes the first major reform to the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, in more than a decade. The American people will have a new law honoring the public's right to know under the tree this holiday season.

I commend House Government Reform and Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman for moving quickly to enact this bill, and for his leadership of the successful effort to pass FOIA reform legislation in the House of Representatives. I thank him and his staff, including Anna Latin, Michelle Ash and Phil Schiliro, for all of their hard work on this legislation. I also commend Representative William ``Lacy'' Clay, Jr., for sponsoring this legislation in the House.

I also thank the members of my staff who worked on this bill--Lydia Griggsby, Lauren Brackett, Erica Chabot, Bruce Cohen and Leila George- Wheeler--for all of their hard work on this bill.

I also commend the bill's chief Republican cosponsor in the Senate, Senator John Cornyn, for his commitment and dedication to passing FOIA reform legislation this year.

I am also appreciative of the efforts of Senator Jon Kyl for cosponsoring this bill and helping us to reach a compromise on this legislation this year. I also thank the more than 115 business, news media and public interest organizations that have endorsed this legislation.

As the first major reform to FOIA in more than a decade, the OPEN Government Act will help to reverse the troubling trends of excessive delays and lax FOIA compliance in our government and help to restore the public's trust in their government.

This legislation will also improve transparency in the Federal Government's FOIA process by: restoring meaningful deadlines for agency action under FOIA; imposing real consequences on Federal agencies for missing FOIA's 20-day statutory deadline; clarifying that FOIA applies to government records held by outside private contractors; establishing a FOIA hotline service for all Federal agencies; and creating a FOIA Ombudsman to provide FOIA requestors and Federal agencies with a meaningful alternative to costly litigation.

The OPEN Government Act will protect the public's right to know, by ensuring that anyone who gathers information to inform the public, including freelance journalists and bloggers, may seek a fee waiver when they request information under FOIA.

The bill ensures that Federal agencies will not automatically exclude Internet blogs and other Web-based forms of media when deciding whether to waive FOIA fees. In addition, the bill also clarifies that the definition of news media, for purposes of FOIA fee waivers, includes free newspapers and individuals performing a media function who do not necessarily have a prior history of publication.

The bill also restores meaningful deadlines for agency action, by ensuring that the 20-day statutory clock under FOIA starts when a request is received by the appropriate component of the agency and requiring that agency FOIA offices get FOIA requests to the appropriate agency component within 10 days of the receipt of such requests.

The bill also clarifies that the Supreme Court's decision in Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep't of Health and Human Resources, which eliminated the ``catalyst theory'' for attorneys' fees recovery under certain Federal civil rights laws, does not apply to FOIA cases.

Furthermore, to address concerns about the growing costs of FOIA litigation, the bill also creates an Office of Government Information Services in the National Archives and creates an ombudsman to mediate agency-level FOIA disputes.

In addition, the bill ensures that each Federal agency appoints a Chief FOIA Officer to monitor the agency's compliance with FOIA requests, and a FOIA Public Liaison who will be available to resolve FOIA related disputes. And, the bill creates a better tracking system for FOIA requests to assist members of the public and clarifies that FOIA applies to agency records that are held by outside private contractors, no matter where these records are located.

Finally, this bill contains a number of key improvements championed by Chairman Waxman. The bill includes ``pay/go'' language that will ensure that attorneys' fees that are awarded in FOIA litigation are paid for with annually appropriated agency funds.

The bill also eliminates a provision on citations to FOIA (b)(3) exemptions contained in the earlier Senate bill. In addition, the bill includes a new provision that requires Federal agencies to disclose the FOIA exemptions that they rely upon when redacting information from documents released under FOIA.

And the bill adds FOIA duplication fees for non-commercial requestors, including the media, to the fee waiver penalty that will be imposed when an

agency fails to meet the 20-day statutory clock under FOIA.

The enactment of FOIA reform legislation this year is an important milestone in the effort to restore openness and transparency to our government. By sending this meaningful FOIA reform bill to the President this year, the Congress also sends a powerful message to the American people that the era of excessive government secrecy has come to an end.

While I am pleased that the reforms contained in the OPEN Government Act will ensure that FOIA is reinvigorated for future generations, my work to strengthen FOIA will not end with the enactment of this legislation.

There is much more work to be done to ensure that we have a government that is open and accountable to all Americans. And I will continue to work with Senator Cornyn, Chairman Waxman and others to further strengthen this vital open government law.

I urge the President to promptly sign this open government legislation into law at the earliest opportunity.

So again, I am pleased today that the Congress is going to send the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act--also known as the OPEN Government Act--and for those who follow this issue, FOIA. They are going to send it to the President before the end of this year. With passage of this bill today in the House and the Senate's passage of it last Friday, this historic, bipartisan, bicameral legislation becomes the first major reform of the Freedom of Information Act in more than a decade. The American people are going to have a new law honoring the public's right to know, and they will have it during this holiday season.

I commend the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee chairman, Henry Waxman, for moving quickly to enact this bill and for his leadership. I wish to thank him and his staff, including Anna Latin, Michelle Ash, and Phil Schiliro, for all of their hard work on the legislation.

I commend also the chief Republican cosponsors in the Senate, Senator John Cornyn and Senator Jon Kyl, for joining me in this effort.

The reason this legislation is so important is that throughout my whole career in the Senate, I have always supported the idea of the Freedom of Information Act. We all know no matter who is in the administration, whether it is a Democratic or a Republican administration, that when they do things they want us to know about, the press releases flow. When they make a mistake--and all administrations do--they would just as soon we not know about it, whether money has been wasted or whether a policy has not been followed. The Freedom of Information Act allows the American public-- and after all, the Government serves them--to find out, through individual private citizens, and through the press, what is happening in their government. It has saved billions of dollars over the years because of what they found out, but more importantly, it has kept our Government honest. I wrote the Electronic Freedom of Information Act which allowed us to use the Internet and electronic files for that purpose.

But this month, the Open Government Act--the first major reform in more than a decade--is going to help reverse the troubling trends of excessive delays, the lax compliance with FOIA and will help restore public trust in our Government. It will improve transparency and restore meaningful deadlines for agency action under FOIA. It will also impose real consequences on Federal agencies who miss the 20-day statutory deadline. It will clarify that FOIA applies to Government records that are held by outside private contractors. The Open Government Act will establish a FOIA hotline service for all Federal agencies, and create a FOIA Ombudsman, which will provide a meaningful alternative to costly litigation.

Chairman Waxman wanted pay-go language to ensure that attorney's fees that are awarded in FOIA litigation are paid for with annually appropriated agency funds, and that has been included in this bill.

This is an important milestone. The Open Government Act contains reforms that ensure FOIA is reinvigorated for future generations. I don't intend to give up after this effort, of course. We will continue to work with our oversight. We will continue to pursue efforts on FOIA. But what we have said is that no matter who is the next President, they will have to run a Government that is more open than it has been in the past, and all 300 million Americans will have a better chance to know what happens in their Government.

This is a great step forward for the access of a free press, and for an honest and open Government in this country.

Mr. President, I yield such time as the Senator from Washington State may need of the time I have. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Washington State.

Mr. President, I have no objection.

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

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

Mr. President, not counting leader time, what is the provision of time once Senator Feingold has introduced his second- degree amendment?

Mr. President, I see the Senator from Wisconsin. I ask, of the half hour on this side, that 15 minutes be given to the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, 10 minutes to the senior Senator from West Virginia, 5 minutes to the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts, and that the Senator from Vermont who is a cosponsor be allowed to submit a statement as though read for the Record.

Mr. President, I support the Feingold-Reid-Leahy Amendment because it specifically requires the President to begin the redeployment of American forces in Iraq within 90 days. Within 9 months of enactment, the redeployment would be completed and funding terminated for Iraq operations with narrow exceptions for a limited number of counterterrorism, force protection, and troop training missions.

The President's so-called ``surge'' is just another word for escalation. It has failed to set the lasting conditions for peace. Violence, though down, still continues at horrifying rates. The various Iraqi factions have made little progress towards political reconciliation. The deadly rifts in that war-torn country have only grown deeper. The Iraqi government has done little to support the few encouraging trends like the willingness of some Sunni groups to turn against the insurgency.

The only thing that is going to force the Iraqis to come to terms-- the only way to get Iraq's neighbors involved in bringing about peace there--is to make clear that our country is not going to be there forever. We cannot afford to spend more of our precious resources and to spill more of the precious blood of our troops if the Iraqis will not take responsibility for their own future.

There is a way to begin to right the wrongs of the President's failed policy on Iraq. That better path involves effective diplomacy and a strong signal about our finite military presence in Iraq, not this senseless waste of money and lives. The Feingold-Reid-Leahy Amendment offers the real promise of a long-term positive outcome for our security and the people of Iraq. I urge the amendment's adoption.

Mr. President, what is the time remaining?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we have 1 minute evenly divided added to the time.

Mr. President, I came here at the time of the Vietnam war. I remember how people said maybe it should end and maybe we should do something; the Vietnam war has gone on too long. We finally stopped it. I am the only Vermonter ever to vote against the war in Vietnam. I voted against funding for it, and the funding failed in the Senate in April of 1975 by one vote. The war ended. Two years later, it was hard to find anybody who supported the war, even though we paid for it for a long time.

We have been in Iraq longer than we were in World War II. It is time to bring our brave men and women home. Let them be with their families and let the Iraqis take care of Iraq.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

And, Mr. President, is there a time allotted on the amendment of the Senator from Michigan?

Equally divided in the usual fashion?

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

the PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

Amendment No. 3876 to Amendment No. 3874

Mr. President, I am going to require 5 minutes.

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation on time?

Mr. President, I see the Senator from Georgia rising. Do you wish to speak?

If the Senator is willing to wait for a few minutes?

Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. In a few weeks, I will have served with him for 33 years. Now, in Robert C. Byrd time, 33 years is but a moment. In Patrick J. Leahy's time, it is a wee bit of time. But I remember coming here as a 34-year-old Senator--Senator Byrd was the majority whip at the time--and how much he taught me, and his colleague, the leader, Mike Mansfield, and then later when he was our leader, and, of course, sat on Appropriations. He has been my leader for all of those years. I appreciate his help.

His late wife Erma was a very special friend of my wife's and mine, and I hope he does not mind me mentioning her at this time. I always thought when she and my wife Marcelle would meet at the grocery store that perhaps Bob and I were at a lower level. It went to a higher level when it was not Senator Byrd and Senator Leahy. But it was Marcelle and Erma talking about Bob and Patrick, and what should we do to take care of those folks. Well, Robert C. Byrd has taken care of all of us these years. It has been a privilege to serve on the Appropriations Committee with him. It is especially nice, because one of the closest friends I have in the Senate, Thad Cochran, has been both chairman and ranking member of that committee, and those of us who have been here for over a third of a century, as I have, know the majority and minority goes back and forth.

The thing that does not go back and forth is the friendships we have across the aisles. The distinguished Presiding Officer knows that his father and I were very close friends and served together. His mother and my wife were close friends. Those kinds of friendships go on through the years and through the decades.

We have spoken of the Senate as being a family. Indeed it is. It is probably a family that wants to go home and go to bed, so I will not push this much longer. But I think how important it is that we do have these chances to be together. So I applaud Senator Byrd, I applaud Senator Cochran, and their staffs.

Because this is the Foreign Operations Bill we are on, I want to mention my own staff: Tim Rieser, Kate Eltrich, Nikole Manatt, who handle the Appropriations subcommittee for me, and the various other matters they are involved in here; J.P. Dowd, my legislative director; Ed Pagano, my chief of staff; Bruce Cohen, who is always listed as one of the 50 most important people here in the Senate--I get listed as an asterisk--because of what he does to make sure the Judiciary matters are kept here; Jessica Berry and so many others who keep this thing going.

I said to Senator Reid, our distinguished leader, we Senators are but mere constitutional impediments to our staffs. We know they are the ones who run it. Roscoe Jones of my staff was here, probably never heard me say that. He is trying desperately to keep a straight face, but it is a fact.

We have included within this money for DNA funding $4.8 million for the Kirk Bloodsworth post-conviction DNA testing grants, and $147 million for the Debbie Smith DNA backlog grants.

I am privileged to know both Kirk Bloodsworth and Debbie Smith.

Mr. President, I am pleased to note that we included funding in the appropriations package for landmark programs created by the Justice For All Act of 2004. Specifically, we provide $2.5 million for Capital Litigation Improvement Grants to improve the quality of legal representation in State capital cases, and over $152 million to improve Federal and State DNA collection and analysis systems critical to the prosecution of the guilty and the protection of the innocent from wrongful prosecution.

The Justice For All Act capped more than 4 years of effort by a bipartisan House and Senate coalition that included both supporters and opponents of the death penalty. It is the most significant step we have taken in many years to improve the quality of justice in this country and restore public confidence in the integrity of the American justice system.

That law increased Federal resources for combating crimes with DNA technology, established safeguards to prevent wrongful convictions and executions, and enhanced protections for victims of Federal crimes.

It authorized the Debbie Smith grant program to address the DNA backlog crisis in the Nation's crime labs, and created new grant programs to reduce other forensic science backlogs, train criminal justice and medical personnel in the use of DNA evidence, and promote the use of DNA technology to identify missing persons. It also established enhanced and enforceable rights for crime victims in the Federal criminal justice system.

The law also included legislation I authored called the Innocence Protection Act. That measure provides access to postconviction DNA testing in Federal cases, helps States improve the quality of legal representation in capital cases, and increases compensation in Federal cases of wrongful conviction. It established the Kirk Bloodsworth PostConviction DNA Testing Program to help States defray the costs of postconviction DNA testing.

Getting the Justice For All Act fully-funded has proven to be tough, especially given the fiscal crunch that all criminal justice programs have faced in recent years. However, as a senior member of the Appropriations Subcommittee that sets the Justice Department budget, I have worked closely with CJS Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby to include in the omnibus package roughly $155 million to advance the comprehensive and far-reaching reforms in the criminal justice system established under the Justice For All Act. I thank my colleagues for their leadership in this area.

State and local authorities will be better able to implement and enforce crime victims' rights laws, including Federal victim and witness assistance programs. They can apply for grants to develop and implement victim notification systems so that they can share information on criminal proceedings in a timely and efficient manner.

The intent of the Justice For All Act was to create a fairer and more accurate system of justice for all Americans. The spending priorities set forth in the Justice Department portion of the fiscal year 2008 Omnibus appropriations package will help protect crime victims, maximize the use of forensic DNA evidence testing, and provide safeguards to prevent wrongful convictions and executions.

I note that this bill is the product of more than 9 months of work by the Senate and House Appropriations Committees. It meets the President's arbitrary budget ceiling, but because of the arbitrary ceiling, we have had to cut a number of things. Senator Gregg, Congresswoman Lowey, Congressman Wolf, and I worked on that to agree to the numbers so that the foreign ops part is not a Democratic bill or a Republican bill, it is a bipartisan bill that attempts to address a myriad of foreign policy, national security, and domestic needs of this country.

Other subcommittees worked just as hard and in a similar bipartisan manner. None of us are completely happy with the outcome. We had to make exceedingly difficult cuts to get to the President's number. But that is the nature of this process.

It is ironic that a President who said he would veto this bill unless it was within his self-proclaimed budget ceiling because he wants to keep a lid on spending, is asking Congress for another $70 billion in emergency funding to continue the war in Iraq.

Those dollars do not score against the budget, so the White House can espouse the fiction that the President is being fiscally responsible at the same time that he piles on the debt for future generations.

Of course, he never threatened to veto any of the appropriations conference reports during the past 6 years.

It is a political ploy after inheriting a balanced budget and tripling the national debt, but it is going to be hard felt by the American people. Cuts in funding for education, health care, public infrastructure, homeland security, environmental protection, transportation--no part of the federal budget was exempted except defense.

The State and Foreign Operations portion of the bill is $2 billion below the President's budget. A full $1.3 billion of that cut was the result of the President's veto threat.

It means fewer children will receive vaccinations in the poorest countries, less money for international peacekeeping, less for HIV/AIDS prevention, care and treatment, less for non-proliferation and anti- terrorism programs, less for disaster relief, less for education, environment, energy and agriculture programs.

But, if the President gets his way, there will be tens of billions of dollars more to keep our troops bogged down in Iraq, while the Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites continue to fight among themselves.

Despite that, this omnibus bill is a far, far better outcome than continued spending at the fiscal year 2007 levels, and the dire consequences that would bring.

The State and Foreign Operations portion totals $35.1 billion in discretionary budget authority including $2.4 billion in emergency spending.

Without emergency spending, the bill totals $32.8 billion, which is $2 billion below the President's regular fiscal year 2008 request and $1.52 billion above the fiscal year 2007 level.

Here are some of the highlights:

We provide $6.5 billion for global health programs, including $345 million to combat malaria, $150 million for tuberculosis, and $5 billion for HIV/AIDS.

We provide $546 million for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Added to funds in the Labor, Health and Human Services bill, this omnibus bill provides a total of $841 million for the Global Fund, an increase of $115 million above last year's level.

It includes $446 million for child and maternal health, which is almost $100 million above last year's level.

We provide $1.69 billion for United Nations peacekeeping, $550 of which will support the desperately needed UN-African Union force in Darfur.

The bill provides $1 billion to assist the world's refugees, and $100 million to help Jordan cope with the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees that have flooded that country, which is already home to tens of thousands of Palestinians.

The bill provides the requested funds for Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the West Bank, Lebanon, and other needy countries.

It provides $1.54 billion for the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which is $344 million above the Senate-passed level.

It provides $501 million for Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs, an increase of $55 million above the fiscal year 2007 level.

The bill does not include the so-called Mexico City language concerning international family planning which would have led to a Presidential veto. It is regrettable that the President would rather score political points than support private organizations that would use our funds for voluntary family planning services.

The bill provides $968 million for embassy security, which is $190 million above the fiscal year 2007 level.

There are several other important provisions in the State and Foreign Operations portion of this omnibus bill.

One would make long overdue reforms to current law by allowing thousands of persecuted refugees, barred because they were members of armed groups that were allied with the U.S., or who were forced to offer food, shelter or other services to terrorist groups, to seek asylum here.

This change was worked out by myself and Senator Kyl, and would provide relief to such Vietnam-era allies as the Hmong tribesman of Laos and the Montagnards of Vietnam, and for child soldiers and others who were forced against their will to provide support to terrorist groups.

These people were there for us when we needed them, and we should not turn our backs when they need the safety of our shores. It is an affront to our values and to our reputation as a safe haven for victims of persecution.

The changes we are making will also provide relief for Iraqi refugees, some of whom have been barred for paying ransom to secure the release of a family member who was kidnapped by insurgents.

This change will not raise the number of refugees admitted to the United States, but it will bring our laws back in line with our values.

This bill contains other provisions, some proposed by Democrats, some by Republicans, which make important improvements in our foreign assistance programs.

We provide $300 million for safe drinking water and sanitation programs, consistent with the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act.

There are funds set aside for reconciliation and people-to-people coexistence programs in the Middle East, as well as in other countries divided by ethnic, religious, or political conflict.

There are new provisions which address the problem of corruption and governance in countries that receive U.S. assistance.

There are new provisions to improve monitoring of U.S. military aid to countries that have human rights problems, and to address the problem of child soldiers.

Mr. President, these are only a few of the items supported by both Democrats and Republicans in this omnibus bill, and they are only within the State and Foreign Operations portion.

There are thousands of other important domestic programs funded by each of the other subcommittees whose bills make up this omnibus appropriations bill.

Lastly, I wish the American public realized how much Senators on both sides of the aisle work together. I wish the American public realized the number of friendships there are on both sides of the aisle, both among the Senators and their families. Are we going to pass a perfect bill here? No. Am I opposed to the blank check for Iraq? Yes.

We have been in Iraq longer than we were engaged in World War II. It is time to let our brave men and women come home to their families. I believe that from the bottom of my soul. The opposition I have to this bill is because of that.

I know how proud I was when my youngest son, LCpl Mark Patrick Leahy of the Marine Corps, was one to answer the call in Desert Storm, as much as I feared for his safety, and how pleased I was that war ended so quickly, that he was not in harm's way.

I also worry that that is not something parents can say when they see parents and wives and husbands, children and brothers and sisters when they see their family members in a war that has lasted longer than World War II. It is time to say: Come home, America. Come home, America, and face the problems in our country. Let the Iraqis now face their problems. Let them stand at the plate. Let us address the fact that we have so many unanswered problems in health and science, in addressing our myriad diseases, education, infrastructure, and everything else in this country.

One thing I must say is that is in this bill, Senator Stevens and I changed the so-called WHTI provision in the omnibus. It shows some realities across the border into Canada and vice versa. There are those of us who think of Canada as that great country to the North. There are some of us who have family ties in Canada, some of us who feel that Canada is not a threat to the United States and we should not treat it as such.

Mr. President, one important issue I wish to highlight today is an international border issue with our friendly neighbors in Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean that could have severe implications for the social and economic ways of life for communities all across our country.

In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Congress has enacted a number of new border security measures, all with the expressed goal of preventing another terrorist incident. In this bill, we have worked hard to provide the needed resources for these programs in a fair and balanced manner. Post 9/11, everyone recognizes that there are potential threats and security needs, but we must implement them sensibly and intelligently.

Over the past few years, I have heard from many Vermonters about problems they have encountered at U.S. border crossings, from long traffic backups to invasive searches and questioning to inadequate communication from Federal authorities about new facilities and procedures. Such a top-down approach does not work well in interwoven communities along the border, where people cross daily from one side to the other for jobs, shopping, and cultural events. We have hardened security around this Capitol and the White House and built fences near San Diego. But those procedures do not work on Canusa Avenue in Beebe Plain, a two-lane road where one side of the street is Vermont and the other side is Quebec, or at the Haskell Free Library and Opera House, which straddles the international border in Derby Line, Vermont, and Stanstead, Quebec.

That is why I am pleased that this bill includes a much-needed delay for full implementation of the so-called Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, which will require individuals from the United States, Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean to present passports or other documents proving citizenship before entering the United States. I was pleased to join with Senator Stevens and many other colleagues from both bodies in pushing for inclusion of this important provision because it is clear that the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State are not ready for a full rollout of the new passport checks next summer.

Muddled thinking, poor planning, and administrative hubris have plagued implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. The Department of Homeland Security has rushed to implement the new passport checks before the necessary technology, infrastructure and training are in place at our border stations. If these critical features of the deployment are not in place when the new program starts, we will see severe delays at our border and law-abiding citizens from the United States, Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean will have great difficulty moving between our countries. Most importantly, a hasty implementation will undermine the intended goals of the program.

The massive backlogs in processing passport applications we saw earlier this year when the Departments of Homeland Security and State started to require passports for air travel is just a taste of the chaos that is likely when they start enforcing citizenship checks at our Nation's land and sea borders in January. There is another train wreck on the horizon if these Federal agencies continue pushing forward with full implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative before the necessary policies and procedures are in place to handle the surge in applications and the lengthy border crossing delays that are sure to come.

I appreciate the recognition by this Congress that premature implementation will recklessly risk the travel plans of millions of Americans and the economies of scores of U.S. States and communities. The Departments of Homeland Security and State have shown that they need more time to establish a set of rules and procedures that will do more than just shut our borders down to legitimate travel and trade.

Mr. President, there is one item that was in the Senate passed version of H.R. 2764, the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, that the conferees agreed to address in the explanatory statement accompanying the amended bill that is Division J of the omnibus bill, relating to Uganda.

That language directs the Secretary of State to submit a report within 90 days detailing a strategy for substantially enhancing United States efforts to resolve the conflict between the Lord's Resistance Army and the Government of Uganda. The language specifies certain issues to be addressed in the strategy. It also indicates that

$5 million is provided to implement the strategy.

Due to an oversight, the $5 million was omitted from the funding table in the explanatory statement under the Economic Support Fund heading. However, it is the intent of the conferees that this amount in unallocated Economic Support Fund assistance be made available for this purpose.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see the Senator from Georgia is about to speak.

Mr. President, I am advised that there are between both sides nearly an hour and a half left to debate. My colleagues have been asking when we might vote on this and on the judge who is also to be voted on. If my friends on the other side are willing to yield back all their time, I am willing to yield back all time on this side and go to a vote on this measure. I am not trying to cut off anybody from their long speeches. But if they are willing to do that, we could save an hour and a half, yield back time on both sides, and then yield back everything but 1 minute per side on the judicial nomination and go straight to a vote on that. Do I hear any takers?

I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back on both the Republican and Democratic side.

You want to stay here for the next hour and a half and vote and the next hour or so for the judge and vote.

I recommend that the Senators, for those who wish to go home, may want to make speeches after the vote. If they would like to make them before, of course. If they would like to make them before, they have that absolute right, and we would not yield back any time.

Then I will not yield back.

Mr. President, in this discussion of earmarks, of course, the elephant in the room--and I do not necessarily mean that as a pun-- are the hundreds of billions of dollars of earmarks from the President of the United States: the blank check to the war in Iraq; the blank check to the people who are hired as contractors, various companies-- Halliburton is one that comes to mind, but many others, Blackwater and so on. These blank checks--nobody wants to talk about those.

But every President--not just this President but every President--has

hundreds of billions of dollars in earmarks in the bill. This President has had trillions of dollars. That is why this President, who inherited the largest surplus in the Nation's history, has turned it into the largest deficit in the Nation's history. And it is why? Because with the combination of his deficits and his war in Iraq, he is just paying the interest on the Bush administration's debt and the war--just the interest and the cost of the war.

Every day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year--366 in leap year--we spend $1 billion every single day--every single day--in interest and the war in Iraq. That is money that does not go to education, does not go to finding a cure for cancer or Alzheimer's or diabetes or AIDS. It is $1 billion a day that does not go to educate our children and our grandchildren. It is $1 billion a day that does not go to find a way to make sure our schools can start competing again with schools around the world. It is $1 billion a day that does not go to paying down the national debt.

So those are the earmarks we do not talk about.

Mr. President, I yield to the senior Senator from Florida.

Mr. President, I see the Senator from Iowa, who obviously has the right to speak. Let me ask again how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. President, I hope we can quickly reach a point where Senators on both sides are willing to finish speaking. Obviously, I am not going to ask to cut off anybody's time. As soon as there is no Senator seeking recognition, I will move again to yield back all time on this vote and all time on the judge's vote, so we can go to both those votes back to back.

I ask for the yeas and nays.