Floor Statements

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I would like the Senator from Vermont to also be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. President, we have nominations before us for lifetime appointments to the Federal bench of Jennifer Walker Elrod of the Fifth Circuit, Roslynn Renee Mauskopf for the Eastern District of New York, Richard Jones for the Western District of Washington, and Sharion Aycock for the Northern District of Mississippi.

The yeas and nays have not been ordered on any of these, have they?

But no request has been made for the yeas and nays; is that correct?

Mr. President, for the interest of my colleagues, I do not anticipate--I do not intend to ask for the yeas and nays on any of these. I have discussed this with the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, and I believe I am authorized to speak for him that he is not going to be requesting the yeas and nays.

Yes.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Maryland. I know he is going to be speaking on that nomination and stating his reasons for opposition, but I wanted it known by both leaders that I will not be requesting a rollcall vote on any of these. I see the distinguished senior Senator from Mississippi is on the floor and I have advised him of that also.

The Senate continues, as we have all year, to make progress filling judicial vacancies when the White House will work with us. The nominations before us today for lifetime appointments to the Federal bench are Jennifer Walker Elrod for the Fifth Circuit, Roslynn Renee Mauskopf for the Eastern District of New York, Richard Jones for the Western District of Washington, and Sharion Aycock for the Northern District of Mississippi. They each have the support of both home State Senators. I thank Senators Murray, Cantwell, Cochran, Lott, Hutchinson, Cornyn, Schumer and Clinton for their work in connection with these nominations.

The progress we have made this year in considering and confirming judicial nominations is sometimes lost amid the partisan sniping over the most controversial nominations.

If the nominations we consider today are confirmed, the Senate will have already confirmed 33 nominations for lifetime appointments to the Federal bench this session alone. That is more judicial nominations than were confirmed in all of 2005 or 2006 with a Republican majority. It is 16 more confirmations than were achieved during the entire 1996 session, nearly doubling that session's total of 17, when Republicans stalled consideration of President Clinton's nominations.

Judge Elrod would be the Fourth Circuit court nominee confirmed so far this year. That is more than the number of President Clinton's circuit court nominations confirmed by this time in 1999 with a Republican-led Senate and four more than the Republican-led Senate confirmed in the entire 1996 session. That was the session in which not a single circuit court nominee was confirmed. That is more than were confirmed in all of 1993 and equals the total in 1983.

If the nominations are confirmed today, the Senate will have confirmed 21 circuit court nominations and 133 total Federal judicial nominees in my tenure as Judiciary chairman. During the Bush Presidency, more circuit judges, more district judges--more total judges--have been confirmed in the first 24 months that I served as Judiciary chairman than during the 2-year tenures of either of the two Republican chairmen working with Republican Senate majorities.

Today, we consider a nominee to the Fifth Circuit. During the Clinton administration several outstanding nominees to the Fifth Circuit were pocket filibustered. They included Judge Jorge Rangel of Texas, Enrique Moreno of Texas and Alston Johnson of Louisiana. They were pocket filibustered without a hearing or committee consideration. In contrast, the Judiciary Committee has proceeded with this nomination.

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts will list 44 judicial vacancies after today's confirmations. The President has sent us only 20 nominations for these remaining vacancies. Twenty-four of these vacancies--more than half--have no nominee. Of the 16 vacancies deemed by the Administrative Office to be judicial emergencies, the President has yet to send us nominees for half of them. Of the 15 circuit court

vacancies, 6--more than a third--are without a nominee. If the President would decide to work with the Senators from Michigan, Rhode Island, Maryland, California, New Jersey, and Virginia, we could be in position to make even more progress.

We have helped cut the circuit vacancies from a high mark of 32 in the early days of this administration, to as few as 13. Contrast that with the Republican-led Senate's lack of action on President Clinton's moderate and qualified nominees that resulted in increasing circuit vacancies during the Clinton years from 17 to 26. During those years, the Republican-led Senate engaged in strenuous and successful efforts under the radar to keep circuit judgeships vacant in anticipation of a Republican President.

More than 60 percent of current circuit court judges were appointed by Republican Presidents, with the current President having appointed more than 30 percent of the active circuit judges already.

Two of the vacancies being filled today are categorized by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts as judicial emergency vacancies. With these confirmations we will have proceeded to fill 18 such vacancies this year.

Jennifer Walker Elrod is a judge on the 190th District Court for Harris County, TX, a position she has held since 2002. A native of Port Arthur, TX, and a graduate of Baylor University and Harvard Law School, Judge Elrod clerked for Judge Sim Lake on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas and spent 8 years in private practice at Baker Botts before joining the bench.

Roslynn Renee Mauskopf has served as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York since her 2002 appointment by President Bush. Ms. Mauskopf received her B.A. from Brandeis and her law degree from Georgetown before spending 13 years as assistant district attorney in the New York County District Attorney's Office and serving a stint as New York State's inspector general.

Richard Anthony Jones has been a judge on the King County Superior Court since 1994. Previously, Judge Jones, a graduate of Seattle University and the University of Washington School of Law, served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Western District of Washington, staff attorney for the Port of Seattle, and deputy prosecuting attorney for King County, also spending 6 years in private practice at Bogle and Gates.

Sharion Aycock has been a state trial judge on the First Circuit Court District in Tupelo, MS, since 2003. A native of Tupelo, MS, Judge Aycock, who received her B.A. from Mississippi State University and her J.D. from Mississippi College School of Law, served for 8 years as Itawamba County prosecuting attorney, and spent time in private practice in Mississippi as a solo practitioner and at law firms.

I congratulate the nominees and their families on their confirmations today.

The Judiciary Committee has reported dozens of measures to the Senate that await action, from privacy legislation to war profiteering legislation to court legislation, all on a bipartisan basis. Yet we are stalled on several important matters.

I have spoken before of the Republican objection to our going to conference to finish work on the Court Security Improvement Act, S. 378, which the committee reported to the Senate back in March. We had to overcome a filibuster just to consider it. It ultimately passed the Senate 97 to zero. We are being prevented from going to conference to resolve differences with the House by Republican objection.

I have spoken before about the War Profiteering Prevention Act, S. 119, what has been stalled for months by unspecified Republican objections.

I have spoken before about the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Act, S. 535. It was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee, yet a Republican Senator objected to Senate passage this week.

Similarly there is a modest bill to extend temporary judgeships in five districts, S. 1327. That simple bill is likewise being prevented from passage by a Republican objection.

Today, I want to focus on another important measure, the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act.

Two months ago, the Senate Judiciary Committee originated the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act of 2007, a legislative package that responds to the tragic deaths that occurred this past April on the campus of Virginia Tech. We tried to show deference to Governor Kaine and the task forces at work in Virginia and to complement their work and recommendations. Working with several Senators, including Senators Boxer, Reed, Specter, Feingold, Schumer, and Durbin, the Committee originated this bill and reported it before the commencement of the academic year in the hope that the full Senate could pass these critical school safety improvements this fall.

Over the past 2 weeks, Senator Schumer and I have tried separately to pass the component of the bill designed to fix flaws in the Nation's background check system. Regrettably, our efforts were blocked by a single Senator.

I do not think the Senate should continue to stand by and wait for the next horrific school tragedy to make the critical changes necessary to insure safety in our schools and on our college campuses. Risks of school violence will not go away just because Congress may shift its focus. In just the last few weeks we have seen tragedy at Delaware State and Memphis, as well as incidents in California and New York. I urge the Senate to move aggressively with the comprehensive school safety legislation.

It includes background check improvements together with other sensible yet effective safety improvement measures supported by law enforcement across the country. Accordingly, I urge the Senate to take up and swiftly pass S. 2084. If we are prohibited by objection from doing so by unanimous consent, then let us move to it and let those with objections seek to amend those provisions to which they object.

There are too many incidents at too many colleges and schools nationwide. This terrorizes students and their parents. We should be doing what we can to help. Just this past week, a troubled student wearing a Fred Flintstone mask and carrying a rifle through campus was arrested at St. John's University in Queens, NY, prompting authorities to lock down the campus for 3 hours.

The next day, an armed 17-year-old on the other side of the country in Oroville, CA, held students hostage at Las Plumas High School, which also resulted in a lock-down. The students in these situations escaped with their lives.

University of Memphis student Taylor Bradford was not so lucky. He was killed on campus this past Sunday morning in what university officials believe was a targeted attack. He was 21 years old. Shalita Middleton and Nathaniel Pew were not so lucky. They were both wounded during an incident at Delaware State and are still hospitalized from the gun shot wounds with Ms. Middleton still in serious condition. They are each only 17 years old.

The School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act responds directly to incidents like these by squarely addressing the problem of violence in our schools in several ways. The bill enlists the States as partners in the dissemination of critical information by making significant improvements to the National Instant Background Check System, known as the NICS system. The bill also authorizes Federal assistance for programs to improve the safety and security of our schools and institutions of higher education, provides equitable benefits to law enforcement serving those institutions, and funds pilot programs to develop cutting-edge prevention and intervention programs for our schools. The bill also clarifies and strengthens 2 existing statutes--the Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act and the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act--which are designed to improve public safety.

Specifically, title I would improve the safety and security of students both at the elementary and secondary school level, and on college and university campuses. The K-12 improvements are drawn from a bill that Senator Boxer introduced in April, and I want to thank Senator Boxer for her hard work on this issue. The improvements include increased funding for much-needed infrastructure changes to improve security as well as the establishment of hotlines and tip-lines, which

will enable students to report potentially dangerous situations to school administrators before they occur.

To address the new realities of campus safety, title I also creates a matching grant program for campus safety and security to be administered out of the COPS Office of the Department of Justice.

The grant program would allow institutions of higher education to apply, for the first time, directly for Federal funds to make school safety and security improvements. The program is authorized to be appropriated at $50,000,000 for the next 2 fiscal years. While this amounts to just $3 per student each year, it will enable schools to more effectively respond to dangerous situations on campus.

Title II of the bill seeks to improve the NICS system. The senseless loss of life at Virginia Tech revealed deep flaws in the transfer of information relevant to gun purchases between the States and the Federal Government. The defects in the current system permitted the perpetrator of this terrible crime to obtain a firearm even though a judge had declared him to be a danger to himself and thus ineligible under Federal law.

Seung-Hui Cho was not eligible to buy a weapon given his mental health history, but he was still able to pass a background check because data was missing from the system. We are working to close gaps in the NICS system. Title II will correct these problems, and for the first time will create a legal regime in which disqualifying mental health records, both at the State and Federal level, would regularly be reported into the NICS system.

Title III would make sworn law enforcement officers who work for private institutions of higher education and rail carriers eligible for death and disability benefits, and for funds administered under the Byrne grant program and the bulletproof vest partnership grant program.

Providing this equitable treatment is in the best interest of our Nation's educators and students and will serve to place the support of the Federal Government behind the dedicated law enforcement officers who serve and protect private colleges and universities nationwide. I commend Senator Jack Reed for his leadership in this area.

Title IV of the bill makes improvements to the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003. These amendments to existing law will streamline the system by which qualified retired and active officers can be certified under LEOSA. It serves us all when we permit qualified officers, with a demonstrated commitment to law enforcement and no adverse employment history, to protect themselves and their families wherever they may be.

Title V incorporates the PRECAUTION Act, which Senators Feingold and Specter asked to have included. This provision authorizes grants to develop prevention and intervention programs for our schools.

Finally, title VI incorporates the Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act of 2007, at the request of Senator Kennedy.

Let us go forward and act now on this important bill. The Virginia Tech Review Panel--a body commissioned by Governor Tim Kaine to study the Virginia Tech tragedy--recently issued its findings based on a 4- month long investigation of the incident and its aftermath. This bill would adopt a number of recommendations from the Review Panel aimed at improving school safety planning and reporting information to NICS.

We must not miss this opportunity to implement these initiatives nationwide, and to take concrete steps to ensure the safety of our kids.

I recognize that there is no panacea to end the sad phenomenon of school violence. The recent tragedies should prompt us to respond in realistic and meaningful ways when we are presented with such challenges. I hope the Senate can promptly move this bill forward to invest in the safety of our students and better support law enforcement officers across the country.

Mr. President, I apologize to my colleagues for my voice. We seem to have enough matter in the air to affect it. I look forward to the fact that in a couple of days I will be in Vermont where the air is much nicer, although I do love this area. I once had a longtime resident of Washington, DC, sitting on the front lawn of my farm in Middlesex, VT, looking out over miles of valleys surrounded by mountains. You don't see another person, just this magnificent view. It was a clear day.

I said to him: There, what do you think of that view?

He said: I don't like it.

I said: What do you mean? You came here from Washington, and you are seeing one of the most beautiful views anywhere in the State of Vermont, and you don't like it? What don't you like about it?

He said: I don't trust air that I cannot see.

Well, we cannot see the air there, but, boy, we can breathe it. I enjoy that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Maryland following that.

Mr. President, I want to take a moment to recognize the outstanding work of Clear Path International, a nongovernmental organization based in Dorset, VT. Since 2000, they have worked to locate and remove landmines and other unexploded ordnance in Vietnam, Cambodia, and elsewhere in Southeast Asia, and more recently have focused on helping the innocent victims of these indiscriminate weapons with medical, rehabilitation, and vocational assistance. As someone who has fought for years to rid the world of landmines, I am proud that Clear Path is based in my home State.

Clear Path recently expanded its work to Afghanistan. I ask unanimous consent that a September 15, 2007, article in the Rutland Herald about Clear Path's work be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I spoke last week in this Chamber about the political crisis in Burma where thousands of Buddhist monks, joined by an estimated 100,000 other Burmese citizens, peacefully protested for an end to military dictatorship.

Despite appeals for restraint by governments around the world, as well as the U.N. Secretary General, they were met with brute force. Soldiers firing live bullets and wielding clubs killed and injured an undetermined number of unarmed civilians, including at least one foreign journalist, and there are reports that hundreds, and possibly thousands, of monks have been beaten, killed or jailed.

The atrocities perpetrated by the Burmese generals are crimes against humanity. They should be indicted and prosecuted by the International Criminal Court.

Sooner or later they will be made to pay for the appalling brutality that has been witnessed on television by hundreds of millions of people around the world.

The United States has imposed economic sanctions on the Burmese government for many years, thanks in large measure to the tireless efforts of Senator McConnell who, for the better part of two decades, has called for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma's rightful leader.

Additional sanctions were announced, belatedly, by President Bush last week. But far more pressure is needed, particularly to convince Burma's trading partners, like China, India and Thailand, to cut their economic ties to Burma. It is thanks in large part to them that the Burmese generals owe their power and wealth.

The crisis in Burma today tarnishes any government that values its financial interests over freedom for the Burmese people. For two decades, they have chafed under the iron grip of a clique of corrupt generals who have shown, year after year, that they belong in the category of ruthless despots who will stop at nothing, including mass murder, to perpetuate their control.

Lasting economic, social and political stability in Burma can only begin once the Burmese generals relinquish power. How that comes about is their choice. We have seen the results of peaceful protest. Not even civil disobedience, just peaceful protest. Time and again it has been met with deadly force.

Those Nations that continue to do business with Burma make a mockery of their own professed commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There is no truer test of their commitment to those fundamental principles than how they respond to the slaughter of unarmed monks and civilians by a regime that is apparently unconcerned that their crimes are being televised to the world.

Whether this year, next year, or thereafter, the Burmese junta's days are numbered. Where do Burma's trading partners want to be then--on the right side of history, or having propped up an illegitimate regime until its last gasps?

No government can claim perfection in its respect for human rights, including my own government. We have made mistakes, and it has damaged our credibility as a nation that was instrumental in the creation of the Universal Declaration.

But our own shortcomings are no excuse for other governments' actions to block U.N. resolutions condemning the crackdown in Burma or their refusal to join us in imposing economic sanctions that could deal a death blow to a tyrannical regime.

And it is certainly no excuse for continuing to do lucrative business deals with a government whose officials pocket the profits for themselves while they starve, imprison and murder their people.

It is a testament to the spirit of the Burmese people, and to the courage of Aung San Suu Kyi, that despite so many years of repression, they remain as defiant and as dedicated to the ideals of democracy as ever. Our moral responsibility, the world's responsibility, is to support them.

Mr. President, today the Senate will pass S. 1640, the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act Amendments of 2007, after the Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to send it to the floor. This is a small but important piece of legislation, and I thank my cosponsors, Senator Cornyn, Senator Kohl, and Senator Whitehouse, for all their hard work. Last year, this bill was passed by the Judiciary Committee and by the full Senate, but unfortunately the House held it hostage to an unrelated bill at the end of the session. I don't want that to happen again this year.

In 1998, Congress passed the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act to recognize the significant time, effort, and innovation that figure into ship design. Recent courtroom experience has made it clear that in order to be effective, this law needs to be clarified and refined. Our bill does exactly this, and no more, by clarifying the definition of ``hull'' and ``deck.'' This ensures that the intellectual property rights of vessel hull designers will be protected.

I look forward to this bill becoming law.

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

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3198.

I make a point of order that it is legislation on an appropriations bill.

I thank the Chair.

While I have the floor, I understand my good friend, the Senator from New Jersey, is concerned. There appears not to be parity between the northern border and the southern border. I share his concern about some of the issues of racism that have been floated into the debate regarding our southern border. I think he would admit that there are differences between the northern border and the southern border. We are blessed to have friends on both our northern and southern borders. The failure of the administration to take a truly bipartisan approach to comprehensive immigration reform and the failure of this body to go forward and work its way all the way through to a final immigration bill reflects some of the problems we have.

The way to solve them is not to close the border to a historic neighbor on the longest unguarded frontier in the world, one of our largest trading partners. We already have policies of this administration that are about to cost us hundreds of billions of dollars in jobs in the United States, which do nothing to enhance our security, with the cockamamie idea from the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security requiring passports to cross between Canada and the United States. This will do very little to improve our security. Instead of working with Senators on both sides of the aisle to find a way where we could have safe, easy transfer between the two countries, keep commerce going, especially after this administration has so badly handled our economy that our dollar has slipped dramatically, the administration wants to hastily implement ill- conceived barriers to cross-border travel. We seem to want to poke our thumb in the eye of a good neighbor.

I do not fault the Senator from New Jersey for his amendment. I understand the reason he does it. As he can well understand, I disagree with the idea of a fence along the Canadian border, just as I voted against erecting a fence along the southern border last year. I wish we could show some sense in real immigration policy with our southern border. It is a fault in this country to pretend we don't have illegal immigrants looking for a better life and to think that we are going to solve the problem by denying them access to social programs, deny their children access to our schools, deny them access to assistance with food, deny them access to health care, and to threaten prosecution of our churches if they show their respect for the commandments and actually want to help the least among us.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I want to make sure: The Senator would have been within his rights to have made a point of order against the Graham amendment had he wanted to; is that correct?

I had heard about an hour before the vote that we were having it.

Mr. President, 6 years ago, just days after the terrorist attacks of September 11, Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle came together to pass comprehensive legislation entitled ``the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act,'' which provided victims of the terrorist attack the option of filing a claim with a national compensation program or seeking limited damages in one Federal district court--the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

This Federal cause of action was designed to give victims and their families a choice in the aftermath of September 11. I supported giving the victims and their families a Federal cause of action in court to pursue civil damages, but it has come to my attention that an important procedural protection was left out of the bipartisan legislation we passed 6 years ago.

The 9-11 victims' case currently being litigated in the Southern District of New York includes parties and witnesses from across the country. However, the existing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure restricts the reach of trial subpoenas to a 100-mile radius of the place of trial. This procedural rule effectively prevents subpoenas from being served in the very cities where the flights originated and where two of them crashed on the morning of September 11.

The bipartisan solution to the problem that Congress created is the Procedural Fairness for September 11 Victims Act, S. 2106. It provides for nationwide service of subpoenas for the September 11 victims. Congress has repeatedly provided for nationwide subpoena power in other instances such as the False Claims Act, the Veterans' Benefits Act, and the Civil RICO statute.

I call on my colleagues to pass this procedural fix that will allow the victims to have a chance to have their claims fairly and thoroughly heard in court. The heart of every American aches for those who died or were injured because of the tragic attacks in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania on September 11. Although no amount of compensation can replace a lost loved one, the Procedural Fairness for September 11 Victims Act offers a technical fix that is crucial to assisting the September 11 victims and their families.

Mr. President, this joint resolution reflects the best traditions of international cooperation between our nation and our Canadian neighbors to the north.

Formally, this joint resolution would grant the consent of Congress to the International Emergency Management Assistance Memorandum of Understanding, which allows emergency responders from the United States and Canada to help each other across our shared border during natural disasters and other serious emergencies. But beyond this legal formality, this agreement reflects our longstanding cooperative partnership with Canada, and how, in times of emergency or natural disaster, we respond together, as neighbors across a largely unguarded border.

When our communities need help, we must join together and come to their aid, whether or not a border is drawn between us. This agreement allows us to honor the extraordinary tradition of international cooperation and good will between our nations, and will make the citizens of both the United States and Canada more secure and safer.

We must all do our best to prepare for the most serious emergencies that can harm our communities. These crises may arise from natural or manmade disasters, from technological hazards, civil emergencies, or even terrorist events. As those who live in the Northeast know, extreme weather is not uncommon in New England, or in the eastern Provinces of Canada, and we have endured catastrophic blizzards and ice storms as recently as this winter that have closed roads and highways, shut down power for extended periods, and stranded travelers and rural residents for days, or longer. Under this agreement, first responders and emergency management professionals from the United States and Canada can work together to provide the necessary assistance to secure public safety.

This compact works well for New England and the eastern Canadian Provinces, and it stands as a model for emergency management planning and cooperation. It has the support of all the emergency management directors in the New England States, and the bipartisan support of all of the New England Senators who have joined me and Senator Snowe to cosponsor this resolution. It is a crucial element of the security and safety planning for all communities in New England and eastern Canada.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 172, S. 1327, a bill to create temporary district court judgeships, that the bill be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 211, S. 535, the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Act; that the substitute amendment be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time, passed; the title amendment be agreed to; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. President, I yield myself up to 5 minutes from the time of the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, today the Senate is considering an amendment to the Department of Defense bill to address crimes that terrorize entire communities. Violent crimes motivated by prejudice and hate are tragedies that haunt American history. From the lynchings that plagued race relations for more than a century to the well-publicized slayings of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., in the 1990s, this is a story we have heard too often in this country. Unfortunately, in my home state of Vermont, there have been two recent attacks that appear to have been motivated by the victims' religion or sexual orientation. A well-respected State representative in the Vermont Legislature has not been immune to threats of violence based solely on his sexual orientation.

I am proud to once again be a cosponsor of this legislation. I would like to express my appreciation to the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Oregon for their work on this. I hope that this time Congress will have the courage to pass it. Six years ago, I made this bill one of the first major bills to move through the Judiciary Committee after I became chairman. It passed the Senate in the 106th Congress and again in the 108th Congress, but Republicans in the House blocked this important bill each time. In the Democratically led House of Representatives, the companion bill this year passed by a wide bipartisan margin. So I am hopeful that this time, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate will join together finally to enact this civil rights measure into law.

This hate crimes legislation improves current law by making it easier for Federal authorities to investigate and prosecute crimes based on race, color, religion, and national origin. Victims will no longer have to be engaged in a narrow range of activities, such as serving as a juror, to be protected under Federal law. This bill also focuses the attention and resources of the Federal Government on the problem of hate crimes committed against people because of their sexual orientation, gender, or disability, which is an important and long overdue expansion of protection. Finally, this bill provides assistance and resources to State, local, and tribal law enforcement to address hate crimes.

The crimes targeted in this bill are particularly pernicious crimes that affect more than just their victims and their victims' families-- they inspire fear in those who have no connection to the victim other than a shared characteristic such as race or sexual orientation. When James Byrd, Jr., was dragged behind a pickup truck and killed by bigots in Texas in 1998 for no reason other than his race, many African Americans throughout our Nation surely felt diminished as citizens. When Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered in Wyoming the same year because of his sexual orientation, many in the gay and lesbian community felt less safe on our streets and in their homes. These crimes promote fear and insecurity that are distinct from the reactions to other crimes, and we need to take action to enhance their prosecution.

All Americans have the right to live, travel and gather where they choose. In the past, we have responded as a Nation to deter and to punish violent denials of civil rights. We have enacted Federal laws to protect the civil rights of all of our citizens for nearly 150 years. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act continues that great and honorable tradition.

This bill will strengthen Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes as a backup, but not a substitute, for State and local law enforcement. States will still bear primary responsibility for prosecuting most hate crimes, which is important to me as a former State prosecutor. In a sign that this legislation respects the proper balance between Federal and local authority, it has received strong bipartisan support from State and local law enforcement organizations across the country.

Moreover, this bill accomplishes a critically important goal-- protecting all of our citizens--without compromising our constitutional responsibilities. It is a tool for combating acts and threats of violence motivated by hatred and bigotry. But it does not target pure speech, however offensive or disagreeable. The Constitution does not permit us in Congress to prohibit the expression of an idea simply because we disagree with it. As Justice Holmes wrote, the Constitution protects not just freedom for the thought and expression we agree with, but freedom for the thought that we hate. I am devoted to that principle, and I am confident that this bill does not contradict it.

We have been trying for years to pass the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. It is appropriate to attach this important legislation to the pending Department of Defense authorization bill, as we have done twice in recent memory, because this is a pressing issue. I hope that we will not see another Republican-led filibuster on what should be a bipartisan measure.

Adoption of this amendment will show once again that America values tolerance and protects all of its people. I urge the opponents of this measure to consider the message it sends when year after year, we are prevented from enacting this broadly supported bill. The victims of hate deserve better. Let us join together and adopt these provisions without further obstruction and delay.

Children's Health Insurance Program

Mr. President, I wish to express again my strong support for the reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program. When we talk about the work of this Congress, I believe the extension of CHIP will stand out as one of the great accomplishments of this body. The bill is a clear statement of the priority of the majority in the Congress.

In passing this legislation, we state clearly that the health of our Nation's children is an issue too important to be dealt with in a ``business as usual'' fashion. This is a program that represents the best of what can happen when Members of both sides of the aisle come together to forge a consensus, with Democrats and Republicans working together for that consensus.

The outcome is a solid compromise on a vital issue: more health insurance coverage for millions of children. The choice is clear. Either you support children's health care or you do not. Either it deserves to be a high priority on our agenda or it does not. Frankly, as a parent, as a grandparent, I don't see this as a choice at all. It is a matter of priority. Few issues are as important as caring for our children.

Instead of helping more families who are struggling to afford basic health care for their children, the President would cut thousands in Vermont who have coverage right now. He is failing to lead, so Congress again is stepping in to realign our priorities.

If we can find the money to fund the war in Iraq for 41 days, the same amount that would pay for 10 million children to have health insurance for a whole year, then we can pay for this bill. I have heard some argue the bill should be opposed because it raises taxes on tobacco--just tobacco. Anyone who opposes this bill on these grounds is choosing big tobacco over children's health.

I support this bill because I believe it is a travesty that in the richest, most

powerful country in the world, there are more than 47 million people without health insurance. It is an absolutely shocking number. It represents roughly one in six people who are going without regular trips to the doctor and foregoing needed medications and who are forced to use the emergency room for care because they have nowhere else to turn. These are our friends, our neighbors, and millions of our children.

My wife, during the years when she worked as a registered nurse, saw these people and realized what happened to them.

The legislation before us will extend and renew health care coverage for 10 million children. My own State of Vermont has been a national leader in children's health care. Even before the creation of CHIP, we knew this was the right thing to do. Because of our early action, Vermont has the lowest rates for uninsured children in the country, making our State a leader and an example for the rest of the Nation. This bill will bring us still closer to the goal of covering all children in our State but also to thousands elsewhere.

We are faced with many choices in the Senate. For me, the choice in this bill is clear. It is a must-pass bill. It is worthy of our support. I urge all my colleagues to stand for the children of this country and support this bill, and I urge the President to abandon his ill-advised threats and to sign it into law. If we can afford the war in Iraq, we can afford to insure our children.

Mr. President, for the past 10 days, people around the world have watched with admiration and increasing trepidation as over 100,000 courageous Burmese citizens, led by thousands of maroon clad Buddhist monks, have demonstrated peacefully in Burma's capital city in support of democracy and human rights. They have been calling for an end to military dictatorship and the release of Burma's rightful, democratically elected leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been either in prison or under house arrest for 11 of the past 18 years.

Today, there are reports that Burmese soldiers had cordoned off the streets, fired tear gas, shot and killed several of the protesters and a Japanese journalist, raided monasteries and arrested opposition party members and hundreds of monks. The vicious response by the Burmese military against masses of peaceful, dignified, unarmed citizens, while not surprising, is intolerable and should be universally condemned.

Earlier this week, President Bush made a forceful statement before the United Nations General Assembly criticizing the repression of Burma's military leaders and announcing tighter sanctions and visa restrictions. The President's announcement is welcome.

U.S. leadership is essential, but it can only go so far. Bringing democracy and human rights to the Burmese people will require far stronger pressure from its neighbors and trading partners such as China, Thailand, Russia, and India. It will require these and other nations to disavow the failed policies of engagement with the Burmese junta.

I have long believed that engagement is most often the best policy, but there comes a time when it has demonstrably failed, and there is no more obvious example of this than Burma. A different approach is long overdue.

Burma's friends and allies must make unequivocally clear what President Bush and others have said, and what the brave citizens of Burma are calling for: Burma will suffer severe economic sanctions unless Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners are released and the generals in charge agree to hand over power.

In his own speech at the United Nations, Secretary General Ban Ki- moon voiced hope that the Burmese junta would ``exercise utmost restraint'' and engage in a dialogue with ``relevant parties'' in seeking national reconciliation. Obviously, that has not happened. Since then, the Secretary General has sent his special envoy to Burma to try to convince the Burmese junta to resolve this crisis peacefully.

It is very disappointing that China, Burma's largest trading partner, has once again put its economic interests, and Burma's corrupt generals, above the fundamental rights of the Burmese people. China, which has more influence over the Burmese junta than any other government, blocked the U.N. Security Council from adopting a resolution condemning the violence.

It is a sad commentary on a country that the rest of the world entrusted to host the next Olympics. While China has urged the generals to exercise restraint, history has shown that in Burma words alone are not enough. We hoped China would act differently this time, but so far we have been mistaken.

Many times in the past, peaceful protests in Burma have been put down with brute force. Countless Burmese citizens have been imprisoned or killed for doing nothing more than speaking out in support of democracy.

The past 10 days of protests have attracted far greater crowds, and because of the Internet the whole world can see their numbers, their bravery, and the strength of their conviction. The people of Burma are an inspiration to people everywhere, and they are asking for our support. Without it they cannot succeed. If all nations stand united behind them now, Burma's long nightmare can finally come to an end.

Mr. President, today the Senate considers The Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2007, a bill concerned with the Nation's growing gang problem. I want to thank Senator Feinstein for her tireless work on this issue over many years and, in particular, for working diligently with me to address my concerns and to formulate what I hope we all agree is an even better gang bill.

Violent crime in America is again on the rise. This troubling news is in my view at least in part the result of the Bush administration's failure to heed the lessons learned from our successful fight against violent crime in the 1990s. Congress and the Clinton administration provided significant new funding to strengthen State and local law enforcement and supported programs to prevent gang and youth violence. Our efforts worked. Studies have repeatedly shown that, violent crime and gang offenses steadily dropped to historic lows. But the Bush administration chose a different course, and, despite warnings from me and others, has repeatedly cut funding for State and local cops on the beat and community programs targeting the prevention of youth crime.

I hope that this bill will be part of a return to productive law enforcement strategies that worked so well in the past. I share the views expressed at the hearing in June by Los Angeles Police Chief William J. Bratton that ``we can't arrest our way out of our gang crime problem.'' As those who have worked on this issue for years know all too well, we must match our commitment to law enforcement with an equal commitment to intervention and prevention as a means of curbing gang violence. Neither strategy works without the other, and I believe, as so many law enforcement and civil leaders do, that any legislative proposal to address gang violence must focus on new means to prevent youth and gang violence. I am glad that Senator Feinstein's bill now reflects these priorities.

The Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2007 represents a significant improvement over earlier gang legislation. It does not contain the death penalties, mandatory minimums, and expansive juvenile transfer provisions that were among my strongest objections to some past proposals. Further, Senator Feinstein has worked with me and others to ensure that this bill will provide some of the resources necessary to reverse the policies of this administration, which have neglected the officers who combat gang violence on a daily basis and the organizations that work to keep children out of gangs. I particularly appreciate provisions in the bill to provide up to $1 billion over 10 years to support collaborative law enforcement and community prevention efforts, with a significant portion of that amount going to civic groups for innovative prevention programs that truly work to reduce gang violence.

I have long said that I don't believe that sweeping new Federal crimes, which federalize the kind of street crime that States have traditionally addressed and can handle with the right resources and assistance, are the right way to go. The bill still contains more emphasis on federalizing crime and mandating sentences than I would like. But I have tried to work with Senator Feinstein to reduce its impact on the sphere of criminal law traditionally handled by the States and to focus on the most serious offenders and conduct, for which Federal attention is needed. I also appreciate Senator Feinstein and Senator Schumer working with Senator Whitehouse and me to ensure that small States such as Rhode Island and Vermont could be eligible under the bill to receive crucially important witness protection grants.

We all care deeply about eradicating gang violence, and we must work together to create a comprehensive solution to this troubling, persistent problem. I hope that this bill will be a step toward reversing the mistakes of the Bush administration and reinvigorating our efforts to provide Federal support for those who combat gang violence every day and to protect those who are its victims.

Mr. President, I strongly support the Feingold amendment, of which I am a cosponsor. This is the strongest amendment for changing course in Iraq among the proposals that we will consider this week. It is the only proposal that addresses the President's failed Iraq policy head on, and that would begin the much needed redeployment of our forces within 90 days.

The invasion of Iraq, and the catastrophe it has caused for the Iraqi people, for Iraq's neighbors, and for the United States, must end. It has been a failure--a failure in terms of our strategic interests, a failure in making us safer, a failure in terms of the President's naive goal of imposing a new Iraqi Government by force.

Our troops have stepped up time and time again, many of them sacrificing their lives, and many more suffering severe injuries. Their performance has been superb. Despite what the President and some who defend his policies say, our troops are not the issue. The issues are the glaring shortfalls, and the appalling incompetence, of the President's strategy.

The ``surge'' has not brought the Iraqi factions any closer to political reconciliation, which after all is the ultimate goal of the surge strategy. In fact, the divisions among the Iraqi people--already deep because of the brutal manipulations of the Saddam Hussein regime-- seem to be worsening. The White House seems to have no idea how to call things off and get our troops out from the middle of Iraq's civil war.

The cold hard truth is that the President has presented the American people with no real option, just more of the same. If the President is going to ignore our true national interests by prolonging this conflict, if the Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces is not going to take responsibility, then Congress, as representatives of the people, must be the catalyst to chart a new course.

The Iraqi Government is only getting more dependent on a continued American presence. It is the consensus view of our intelligence community, as reflected in the latest National Intelligence Assessment, that there is no prospect that in the next year the Iraqis will come together and reach a political settlement.

Even the new White House report, buttressed in part by the nonpartisan and professional General Accountability Office, shows that Iraq is getting a failing grade in its ability to meet key military and political metrics on its path toward reconciliation and stability.

The administration cites the positive developments in Anbar Province as justification for continuing this perpetual deployment of American forces. There has been progress there, much of it pre-dating the so- called ``surge.'' Hundreds of members of the Vermont National Guard know how bad the situation was in Anbar less than a year and a half

ago, when these soldiers helped make up Task Force Saber in Ramadi. They were in the worst place in Iraq at the worst time. Since then the situation has clearly improved, and our troops and their commanders deserve credit and our thanks for that tough and dangerous work.

But the new-found calm is based on a set of agreements between Sunni tribes and American forces, not with the Iraqi Government. The Iraqi Government sees newly organized and perhaps newly armed groups of Sunnis as a threat to its power, and it is doubtful that will change any time soon.

In the meantime, the situation elsewhere continues to implode.

Passage of the Feingold amendment would force the Iraqis--and neighboring nations with a stake in Iraq's future--to recognize that the open-ended deployment of U.S. forces is ending. The drawdown of our forces, coupled with a strong U.S.-led diplomatic initiative, might bring about the political reconciliation that no amount of additional military force can bring about.

It might also cause Iraq's warring ethnic factions to go their own way, splitting the country into separate states. But that is where they are currently headed anyway. The administration's policies and incompetence have brought us to the point where there are no good options. But either of these scenarios is better than the future offered by the President. His war is costing us horrific casualties and enormous sums that could be better spent repairing our frayed international reputation and strengthening our security at home.

I urge my colleagues to take the only responsible step and pass this amendment that will finally bring our troops home.

Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate is poised to pass H.R. 3580, a bill regarding the Food and Drug Administration. This legislation addresses many important health care issues and I commend the Senate leaders and relevant committee chairmen for coming to agreement on this complex bill. I have been monitoring the ongoing negotiations between the House and Senate on this legislation because a slight variation in language between the two relevant bills could have affected the claims of thousands of injured American consumers.

Last week, I chaired a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the emergence of regulatory agencies like the FDA asserting that its regulations preempt all State laws, even in the absence of congressional intent to do so. At this hearing we received extensive testimony that the Bush administration has been using this approach to shield corporations from civil liability. This regulatory preemption model has been especially troubling in the area of pharmaceutical drugs. Several times in the past several years we have learned from whistleblowers and smoking gun documents that certain corporations knew of dangers in their medical products yet failed to adequately warn consumers. Many consumers have been injured as a result of this corporate misconduct and it is certainly not congress' intent to shield such corporate decisionmaking.

The legislation we are set to pass today contains a rule of construction making clear that Congress has again decided that we are not preempting State law regarding the responsibility of drug manufacturers to immediately notify consumers of dangers without waiting for the FDA to act. Drug companies maintain the authority to correct their warning labels if they learn of any information that their products could harm consumers. These corporations can and must immediately correct any existing warning that has been issued and cannot hide behind the Byzantine regulatory structure of the FDA to shield them from liability for causing serious injury. To do otherwise would endanger all Americans who may be injured by their products and would remove the important incentive the corporations currently have to make their products safer and to adequately warn consumers of potential dangers.

The Senator from Pennsylvania is the lead cosponsor of this amendment. I proudly yield him 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I understand the Senator from New Mexico wants 3 minutes. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the senior Senator from Michigan.

Mr. President, if I could ask the Senator from Alabama a question.

Is it the Senator's intention to close for his side?

Mr. President, at the beginning of this debate, I said Congress committed a historic error when it eliminated the Great Writ of habeas corpus because it did it not just for those detained at Guantanamo Bay--that raises enough questions about our sense of history and our sense of our own basic jurisprudence in this country--but Congress also eliminated it for millions--millions--of permanent legal residents here in the United States. Some of them are professors in our finest schools, others are medical people in our hospitals, and some are actually serving in our law enforcement and in our military. Listening to the arguments these past few days of those opposed to restoring habeas rights, it becomes ever more apparent that this was a mistake the last Congress and the administration made based on fear. I cannot think of a greater mistake than one based on fear in the most powerful Nation on Earth.

Opponents make the alarmist argument that if we permit people to challenge their detention in Federal court, we will jeopardize our national security and place ourselves in greater danger. In fact, of course, the opposite is true.

We have heard these kinds of arguments before during trying and turbulent times in American history, such as when the Government shamefully interned tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans during World War II. We should know by now that it hurts this country, and especially our men and women in uniform, when we allow public policy to be guided by fear, rather than by American values and freedoms.

The critics of habeas restoration resort to scare tactics because they know that history and the facts are against them.

The truth is that casting aside the time-honored protection of habeas corpus makes us more vulnerable as a nation because it leads us away from our core American values and calls into question our historic role as the defender of human rights around the world. It also allows our enemies to accomplish something they could never achieve on the battlefield--the whittling away of liberties that make us who we are, the liberties we fought during the Revolutionary War to preserve, the liberties we fought a civil war to preserve, the liberties we defended not only our own freedom but the freedom of much of the Western World in two world wars to preserve.

The need for the Great Writ has never been stronger than it is today. We have an administration that at every opportunity has aggressively sought unchecked executive power while working to erode or to eliminate constitutionally enshrined checks on that power by the courts and by Congress. Stripping away habeas rights which allow people to go to court to challenge detention by the executive is just the latest brazen attempt in a 6-year-long effort to consolidate power in the executive branch. You could have picked up somebody, locked them up, and all that person wants to say is: I am not the person named here. Before we did this, someone could at least get a writ of habeas corpus, go to the court, and say: I am not going to contest the case or anything else, but just the fact that you picked up the wrong person. They can't even do that now. This is America?

The writ of habeas corpus is not some special benefit to be honored only when it is convenient. As no less a conservative than Justice Antonin Scalia has written, ``[t]he very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive.'' Habeas has served for centuries to protect individuals against unlawful exercises of state power.

Habeas corpus is the only common law writ enshrined in the Constitution. Article I, section 9 provides that the ``Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of rebellion or invasion the public Safety may require it.'' The Judiciary Act of 1789 specifically empowered federal courts to issue writs of habeas corpus ``for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of commitment.'' In more than two centuries since then, habeas has only been suspended four times, all of them at times of active rebellion or invasion. Even this administration does not claim that we are at such a point now.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 spurned centuries of tradition and empowered the executive to detain noncitizens potentially forever, with no meaningful check by another branch of Government. With this act, Congress permanently eliminated the writ of habeas corpus for any noncitizen determined to be an enemy combatant or even awaiting such determination. If the determination hasn't been made, we are going to spend a few years making up our minds whether you are an enemy combatant, but you still can't contest the fact that we have picked up the wrong person. So a mere accusation by the executive is enough to keep a person in custody indefinitely, and that detention is not subject to review. As our Founders knew well, no administration--no administration, not this one, not the next one, not the one after that--can be trusted with that kind of power.

The Specter-Leahy amendment would restore the proper balance of power between the branches of Government by reestablishing the law on habeas as it existed prior to the passage of the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act. It creates no new legal rights. The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed in the Rasul case that American and British courts have routinely assumed jurisdiction over habeas claims made by aliens.

British courts in the 18th century considered habeas claims of aliens held as enemy combatants, as did the U.S. Supreme Court during World War II, a war where we faced the possible destruction of democracy. These courts considered habeas claims of alien enemy combatants who had already received military trials--meaning even before their habeas claims, they had already received more process than most noncitizen detainees will ever get now. Our legendary Chief Justice, John Marshall, in one instance granted relief to an alien enemy combatant bringing a habeas claim. In most of these historical cases, though, habeas petitioners lost and were not granted any relief, and indeed most habeas petitioners have their claims dismissed with a simple, one- page ruling from a judge. This historical record is evidence that habeas can be relied upon as a necessary, but entirely reasonable, check on Executive power.

As in the past, noncitizen detainees alleged to be enemy combatants should at least have the right to go into an independent court to assert that they are being held in error--not to have a trial but at least to say: Hey, we read the warrant, this is not the person--I am not the person named; you picked up the wrong person. They can't even ask an independent court to determine that.

As in the past, a court will only grant habeas relief if the petitioner is able to, in fact, establish this effort.

We are not talking about having a trial with all of these red herrings we have heard from those on the other side, who say that somehow we would have to bring in battlefield tactics or we would have to bring in classified information. That is not it. That is not it. We are talking about just being able to at least contest the fact that they have been picked up.

If the detainees held at Guantanamo truly are the worst of the worst of our enemies, as this administration claims, surely it will be easy for the Government to make a baseline showing in court that they are lawfully detained. If they are really such enemies, we ought to at least know that and know that they were lawfully detained. Of course, senior government and military officials have told the press a story very different from the party line. They have told the New York Times that the Government detained many of the Guantanamo detainees in error.

In any case, the sweep of the Military Commissions Act goes well beyond the few hundred detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. It threatens the civil liberties of an estimated 12 million lawful, permanent residents of the United States. They work here, they pay taxes in this country, and under current law, any of these people can be detained forever without the ability to challenge their detention in Federal court simply on the executive say-so, even if the Government made a mistake and picked up the wrong person. As we heard from Professor Mariano-Florentino Cuellar at the Judiciary Committee's hearing on this issue, this is of particular concern to the Latino community, which includes so many of the hard-working lawful permanent residents in this country.

The cursory review process set up by Congress for detainees, called combatant status review tribunals or CSRTs, is no substitute for habeas corpus because, among many other deficiencies, it does not provide a neutral arbiter--a Federal judge--to review the factual record for error. This summer, LTC Stephen Abraham, a military lawyer who participated in the CSRT process, said in a sworn affidavit that the evidence presented to CSRTs ``lack[s] even the most fundamental earmarks of objectively credible evidence.'' He also said that superiors pressured the officers on review panels to find detainees to be ``enemy combatants.'' That is neither just nor fair, and rigged tribunals are not the way this country has ever dispensed justice, nor the way it should. Court review allowed under current law that relies on the findings of such a flawed system falls well short of the independent review that our system of checks and balances demands.

Restoring habeas would send a clear message that when we promote democracy and the importance of human rights to the rest of the world, we are practicing what we preach. I have heard so many speeches on the floor of this body--and I agree with them--criticizing other countries for doing what we have done. How do we go to these other countries and say: You can't do this. And they say: But you do it. And we say: Oh, well, that was the war on terror; we are facing this great threat, so we have to do it, but you shouldn't do it. Well, we need to listen to our military leaders and our foreign policy specialists on this point who disagree with what we have done.

The former Navy Judge Advocate General Donald Guter told the Judiciary Committee in May that by stripping even our enemies of basic rights, we are providing a pretext to those who capture our troops or our civilians to deny them basic rights. What do we say the next time an American civilian, lawfully in another country, is picked up and detained and not even allowed to raise the point that they picked up the wrong person, and we go to that country, and they say: Hey, wait a minute, that is what you do in your country; don't preach to us. Your American citizen is going to stay behind bars. We are just doing to you what you are allowed to do to us.

William H. Taft IV, former Deputy Secretary of Defense under President George H. W. Bush, and a former State Department adviser in the current administration, told us that stripping the courts of habeas jurisdiction sacrificed an important opportunity to enhance the credibility of our detention system. Restoring habeas to detainees will improve our strategic and diplomatic positions in the world and remove a rallying point for our enemies.

The right to habeas corpus is a limited right. Habeas, as I said before, does not give a person the right to a trial. It does not give a habeas petitioner a right to personally appear in court. It most certainly does not mean that U.S. service men and women will be pulled from the battlefield to testify in such proceedings, notwithstanding the alarmist comments made on the other side of the aisle. All the Government must do to defeat a habeas claim is demonstrate to a judge by a preponderance of the evidence that the detainee is being lawfully held. That is all.

Most habeas petitions are rejected by the Federal courts without the need to call a single witness. I certainly knew that when I was a prosecutor. Any time I ever sent anybody to prison for more than a year, I knew there would be half a dozen habeas petitions filed. They would usually be denied without even ever having called a single witness. In fact, habeas petitions can be, and routinely are, disposed of in Federal court based on a single affidavit by a Government agent explaining the basis for detention. I simply sent over an affidavit showing the date and time of conviction to the court clerks. That is all I had to do. Habeas simply provides an opportunity for a detainee to argue to an independent Federal judge that he or she is being held in error. If the detainee is properly held, the Government can easily overcome that claim. The distinguished Presiding Officer was a distinguished U.S. attorney. He understands very well that point.

Recent history makes clear that restoring habeas will not invite habeas litigation from abroad, as some have claimed. The Supreme Court found habeas jurisdiction at Guantanamo Bay because Guantanamo is, for all intents and purposes, a U.S. territory. U.S. courts have found no habeas jurisdiction in the case of enemies captured, detained, and held in Iraq. There was no flood of international habeas petitions following the 2004 Rasul decision validating the extension of habeas rights at Guantanamo, and there is not going to be if habeas is restored now.

Guantanamo detainees had habeas rights until those rights were conclusively taken away last year. Between 2002 and late 2006, these claims were handled by judges in the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC. The judges in that court released no detainees, and they issued no orders compelling the Government to alter the detainees' conditions of confinement. Habeas is a necessary and appropriate check on executive power, but it is a far cry from a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Opponents of habeas restoration suggest other countries will not open their courts to petitions from enemy aliens. But if a foreign country imprisoned an American, as I said before--say an aid worker or a nurse or a civilian contract employee--and held that person without any charge as a combatant, or simply said: We are going to ``determine'' whether that person is a combatant because he or she has supported the U.S. military, for example, or had a ``Support Our Troops'' sticker on their car, the U.S. Government would surely demand that American have a chance to go to court. Our consul would be down there immediately demanding that. What kind of a reaction would there be in this country if we read in the paper where another country said: No, you have no right to challenge the fact that we picked them up; you have no right to challenge even that we picked up the wrong person. When we screamed about that in editorials all over this country saying how horrible that is, they would simply answer: We are just doing what you do. By denying basic rights to alien detainees, we encourage other nations to do the same to American civilians, and they will. They will. That is why we hear from so many of our military, so many distinguished people that we should change this.

Critics of the Specter-Leahy bill also point to released detainees who they assert went back to the battlefield, as a reason not to restore habeas rights. But the truth is that those Guantanamo detainees who have been released since 9/11 have been freed by the military following its own process, not by Federal judges on habeas review.

The critics' assertions that habeas proceedings in Federal court will somehow lead to the sharing of classified information with terrorists is

cockamamie. It is merely fear-mongering. This argument demeans our Federal judiciary. It ignores the procedures established by Congress to ensure that classified information is safeguarded in Federal proceedings. Federal judges have significant discretion in determining what kinds of evidence to consider, what witnesses, if any, to allow for a habeas claim. Many detainee habeas claims could be resolved with no recourse to classified documents at all. Where classified evidence is relevant, all Federal judges are cleared to view such information, and they are well equipped to deal with it without compromising national security.

We must not succumb to baseless, fear-driven arguments. The sky will not fall if we vote to restore habeas. Quite the contrary: Congress will take a positive step toward returning to our core American values of liberty, due process, and checks and balances. In doing so, we will increase America's security and bolster our place in the world. That is why this amendment has support from across the political and ideological spectrum.

I thank Senator Dodd, Senator Menendez, Senator Bingaman, Senator Levin, and Senator Specter for coming to the floor and eloquently calling for a return to basic American values and the rule of law.

Yesterday, 41 Republicans voted to filibuster a bill that would have given to hundreds of thousands of residents of the District of Columbia the fundamental right to vote for Congress--the District of Columbia, which has roughly the same population as my own State of Vermont. I hope they will not follow that sad day with a filibuster today of legislation to restore the fundamental right of someone held by the Government without any charge to at least go to court and ask why.

The most daunting challenge in the age of terrorism is to strike the proper balance between maintaining our national security against very real threats but also preserving the liberties that are the proudest legacy of our Founders. It is our Founders who were willing to risk capture and hanging to bring about a nation based on the principles that you, Mr. President, and I have always supported and which we supported in our oath of office.

More than ever, especially in the wake of September 11, we have to remain vigilant against security threats, but let's never forget that our values are the foundation that makes our Nation strong. Now is the time to reaffirm those values, to be renewing this country's fundamental, longstanding commitment to habeas corpus review. I urge every Senator to support the Specter-Leahy amendment to restore habeas corpus.

Mr. President, I wish Members would look at those who support this. Support from this amendment goes across the political spectrum, from the American Conservative Union to liberal groups, to some of our leading citizens, including former Secretary of State Powell and others who have spoken out for this. We should pass this amendment.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

I thank the Chair. Mr. President, if the yeas and nays have not been ordered, I will ask for the yeas and nays.

I thank the Chair.

Cloture Motion