Floor Statements

Mr. President, there are times in virtually every country's history when years of underdevelopment and conflict give rise to opportunities to change course. Such times are rare, and such opportunities are too often missed.

I think of our Civil War, which caused so much loss of life and devastation. It preserved the Union, and it led to the emancipation of some 3 million African slaves. Nothing can diminish those achievements or the sacrifice of those who gave their lives. But instead of providing the former slaves with the equal rights to which they were entitled, until passage of the Civil Rights Act a century later African Americans suffered from racially discriminatory laws that kept them in an inferior status. The country remained bitterly divided because of it.

Nepal today faces its own historic choice.

For more than a decade, Nepal has been plagued by an internal armed conflict in which savage brutality was inflicted on impoverished civilians by Maoist insurgents and the Royal Nepal Army. Over 13,000 people died, mostly noncombatants, and virtually no one has been held accountable for those crimes.

For more than two centuries, Nepal has been a monarchy whose Kings, with rare exception, denied the rights and ignored the needs of their people who remain among the world's poorest. In February 2005, King Gyanendra, a narcissistic, arrogant autocrat, seized absolute power, jailed his opponents, and muzzled the press, only to relent in April 2006 in the face of mounting international pressure and the protests of thousands of courageous Nepali citizens.

Nepal's previous experiment with multiparty democracy during the 1990s had been disappointing. The leaders of the country's political parties distinguished themselves by amassing personal fortunes and doing little for the people.

But since the restoration of civilian government in April last year there has been impressive progress. A Comprehensive Peace Agreement was signed, Maoist combatants have gone into cantonments, the army has been confined to barracks, and the Maoists, until today, were part of the interim Government. The King has been stripped of all political power, although the ultimate fate of the monarchy has yet to be decided. The word ``royal'' has been eliminated from Government institutions, including the army. Elections for a Constituent Assembly to be held in June were postponed, but they have been rescheduled for November 22. The assembly is to draft a new constitution.

Also during this period, Nepal's ethnic minorities, women, and other groups who have long been persecuted and denied a voice have demanded equal rights and representation. This poses both challenges and opportunities for the Government.

The international community, including the United States, has supported the peace process directly and through our financial contributions to the United Nations which has performed key monitoring functions. Recently, the United States provided $3 million to purchase the ballots for the elections.

Much has transpired since April 2006, when I last spoke in this Chamber about political developments in Nepal. Today, just 65 days before Nepal's elections, I would like to address my brief remarks to the people of Nepal and to Nepal's political parties, including the Maoists.

On November 22, the people of Nepal will be presented with one of two options: They will either have a historic opportunity to create a legitimate, representative government which can only be achieved through a popular vote or they will be denied that opportunity. If the elections are held, Nepal will continue on a path that can bring its governmental institutions and its society into the modern age and begin to finally address the poverty and injustices that gave rise to the conflict. If they are denied, the Nepali people will likely see their country become more fragmented and ungovernable and more vulnerable to external influences over which they have little control.

Recent developments have been both encouraging and troubling. Perhaps that is to be expected in a country of multiple ethnic groups speaking some 93 languages that is struggling to transform itself.

The bombings in Kathmandu 3 weeks ago, other violent acts perpetrated by newly formed armed groups in the Terai and members of the Maoist young wing, the Young Communist League, and the Maoists decision to

withdraw from the Government illustrate the fragility of the process.

Moreover, the leaders of the Congress parties and the Maoists have done little to prepare for the elections. At times, party members have seemed more interested in furthering their own personal ambitions and in derailing the electoral process altogether. The leading party of the left, the UML, has done more to prepare. But all parties will need to promptly step up their election activities if voters are to have the informed choice they deserve.

On the positive side, the Election Commission deserves credit for a voter registration process that has reached Nepal's remotest villages. There is no doubt that the people are eager to go to the polls, just as they were determined to put an end to the King's abuse of power.

Over the past 3 years, I have observed the fortitude of the Nepali people's desire for peace, for justice, and for a meaningful voice in government. Their desire is shared and admired by the American people.

To the Maoists, I would say that it was you who called for a Constituent Assembly. Saying you are committed to the democratic process at the same time that you withdraw from the Government, make new demands that contradict previous commitments, support disruptive economic strikes, and threaten to return to confrontation is not the way to earn the people's trust and support that are necessary to become an effective force for change. Nor is it the way to earn the trust of the United States.

I have campaigned for elective office five times over more than 30 years, and I know something about earning the people's trust and support. It does not come from dogmatic speeches or lofty party platforms or manifestos. It does not come from saying one thing and then doing the opposite. It certainly does not come through the use of violence, threats, and extortion. It comes by showing that you deserve the people's trust and support. There is no better way to begin that process than to seize this opportunity and show the people that you can make the government work for them.

History is replete with examples of armed groups that achieved popular legitimacy through the democratic process. If the Maoists win seats through free and fair elections, uphold the commitments they have made in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and other agreements, and devote themselves to working for change peacefully, I am confident the United States will treat them as rightful members of the elected Constituent Assembly or of the Government. We may disagree with their positions on some issues but not about their right to serve in Government and to advocate for those positions.

I know the Maoists are looking to the United States to lift our restrictions on their party and its leaders and to remove them from our list of terrorist organizations. In order for that to happen, the Maoists need to take unequivocal, positive steps. The cases of the murdered Nepali security guards need to be satisfactorily resolved. The party's resumption of land seizures and the reopening of so-called people's courts are steps in the wrong direction.

To the other political parties in Government, I would say that it is time to make good on your commitments. Not only the Maoists but traditionally marginalized groups as well are increasingly skeptical that the Government is serious about delivering on its key commitments to the peace process, whether downsizing and reforming the army, supporting land reform, or creating jobs and opportunities for minority groups that have long been disadvantaged and ignored. While those groups should pursue their grievances through a vigorous election campaign, not through obstruction of the democratic process, the failure of the parties to govern and match rhetoric with action threatens the elections, as does the Maoists' saber rattling.

The leaders of Nepal's political parties know that the power of holding office comes with responsibilities, and the spotlight is on them. Lasting legitimacy comes not only through the ballot box but in the day-to-day ability to honor commitments and improve the lives of all citizens. This is their chance to put the Nepali people and their country first, by showing that they believe in effective, accountable government. If they do not, the United States, and I suspect many other countries, will no longer afford them the legitimacy they will need for our continued support.

Mr. President, Nepal's path to the future may be decided in the waning months of this year. Although a small country wedged between two emerging giants, Nepal is unique in more ways, more beautiful ways, than most other countries its size. Today, the United States--Congress and the Executive--are united in our desire to help Nepal become a democracy whose Government is representative of Nepal's remarkably diverse population and where the fundamental rights of all people are respected.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I realize it is not possible, because agreement has not yet been reached, to set aside the pending legislation to bring up the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act as an amendment. As the managers of the bill are not on the floor, I certainly will not take advantage of that and do it. So let me speak about it.

I now am speaking on the National Defense Authorization Act. At an appropriate time, I will bring up amendment No. 2022. I will tell you why I will do this.

Last year, Congress committed an historic mistake by suspending the Great Writ of habeas corpus--not just for those confined at Guantanamo Bay but for millions of legal residents in the United States. The Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing in May on this bill illustrated the broad agreement among representatives from diverse political beliefs and backgrounds that the mistake committed in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 must be corrected. The Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007, S.185, the bill on which this amendment is based, has 30 cosponsors. The Senate Judiciary Committee reported it on a bipartisan basis. I hope Senators will review the committee report on this measure.

Habeas corpus was recklessly undermined in last year's Military Commissions Act. Like the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, the elimination of habeas rights was an action driven by fear, and it was a stain on America's reputation in the world. This is a time of testing. Future generations will look back to examine the choices we made during a time when security was too often invoked as a watchword to convince us to slacken our defense of liberty and the rule of law.

The Great Writ of habeas corpus is the legal process that guarantees an opportunity to go to court and challenge the abuse of power by the Government. The Military Commissions Act rolled back these protections by eliminating that right, permanently, for any noncitizen labeled an enemy combatant. In fact, a detainee does not have to be found to be an enemy combatant; it is enough for the Government to say someone is ``awaiting'' determination of that status--something detainees cannot even contest when they are held in jail.

The sweep of this habeas provision goes far beyond the few hundred detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay, and it includes an estimated 12 million lawful permanent residents in the United States today. These are people who work and pay taxes, people who abide by our laws and should be entitled to fair treatment. It is, after all, the American way. It is what we brag about when we go to their countries. But under this law, any of these people can be detained, forever, without any ability to challenge their detention in court.

This is wrong. It is unconstitutional. It is un-American.

Top conservative thinkers, evangelical activists, and prominent members of the Latino community have all spoken out on the need to restore these basic American rights. GEN Colin Powell, like many leading former military and diplomatic officials, has spoken of the importance of these habeas rights. He asked, ``Isn't that what our system's all about?''

Perhaps most powerful for me was the testimony of RADM Donald Guter, who was working in his office in the Pentagon as Judge Advocate General of the Navy on September 11, 2001, and saw firsthand the effects of terrorism. His credibility is unimpeachable when he says that denying habeas rights to detainees endangers our troops and undermines our military efforts.

Admiral Guter testified:

As we limit the rights of human beings, even those of the

enemy, we become more like the enemy. That makes us weaker

and imperils our valiant troops, serving not just in Iraq and

Afghanistan, but around the globe.

He was right. Whether you are an individual soldier, or a great nation, it is difficult to defend the higher ground by taking the lower road. The world knows what our enemies stand for. The world also knows what this country has tried to stand for and live up to in--the best of times, and the worst of times.

Now, as we work to reauthorize the many programs that compose our valiant armed forces, it is the right time to heed the advice of so many of our top military lawyers who tell us that eliminating basic legal rights undermines our fighting men and women; it does not make them stronger.

I especially want to thank Senator Specter and acknowledge his strong and consistent leadership on this issue. Senator Specter and I came to this

floor to offer this amendment back on July 10, when this bill was initially being considered, and thereafter. I hope all Senators will now join with us in restoring basic American values and the rule of law, while making our Nation stronger.

It is from strength that America should defend our values and our way of life. It is from the strength of our freedoms, our Constitution, and the rule of law that we shall prevail. I hope all in the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, will join us in standing up for a stronger America, for the America we believe in, and support the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007.

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

Mr. President, earlier today, the President announced his intention that he will, at some appropriate time, send the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey to the Hill to be the next Attorney General. When that nomination arrives, with the appropriate FBI clearance and all, the Judiciary Committee will approach consideration of this nomination in a serious and deliberate fashion.

The administration, of course, took many months in determining that a change in leadership was needed at the Department of Justice. Then after they made the determination they had to change the leadership, the President spent several weeks before making his nomination public. It wasn't until Saturday of this past weekend that I was told by the press whom he was going to nominate. Our focus now, of course, will be on securing the relevant information the committee needs to proceed to scheduling fair and thorough hearings, and we will do that.

I am not in any way critical of the President for taking so many weeks in deciding whom he wanted. In fact, I would compliment him on his decision not to go with some of the names that apparently were presented to him. I tried to stress to the President and others at the White House, with all the problems at the Department of Justice, that choosing a person who would be there solely for political purposes would not be a wise thing to do. I know the President had a number of names that would have fallen into that category, and to his credit, those names that would have created the greatest political problems were rejected.

Now, I have also been in discussion with White House officials about some of the committee's outstanding requests, and I let them know that cooperation with the White House would be central in determining that schedule. In this regard, I wish to compliment the President's counsel, Mr. Fielding. Mr. Fielding called me yesterday evening. Without going into the details of that conversation, I believe he understands there are certain materials that we have requested from the White House-- requested for some time now--that will be necessary so that we can engage in thorough deliberations. I take him at his word that we will try to work out a way to get us some of those materials. It will make it far easier for both Republicans and Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to ask appropriate questions.

This is a big job, being Attorney General. It becomes even bigger now, as the next Attorney General must regain the public trust and begin the process of restoring the Department of Justice to its proper mission, and also replacing a very large number of key members of the Department of Justice who have resigned and whose replacements, themselves, will require confirmation by the Senate. So I am hopeful that once we obtain the information we need, once we have had the opportunity to consider this nomination, we will be able to make progress in this regard.

As I told the White House last night, I stand ready to work with them in the coming weeks to get the material we need, and then once that material is available, to find an appropriate time to schedule a hearing.

I look forward to meeting with Judge Mukasey in the coming days. We will meet briefly tomorrow and then at greater length once his background check has been completed. I wish to learn more about his record, but I also wish to learn about his ideas on improving the relationship between Congress and this administration so we can conduct more effective oversight and take the steps toward rebuilding the Justice Department to be worthy of its name.

In the meantime, I have told Judge Mukasey he will have a lot on his plate in the coming days. I complimented him and his family for being willing to be considered for this nomination and urged him, even as busy as he may be, to spend time with his family. I understand he has a wonderful family--grandchildren and so forth--and I am sure he will do so.

I again urge the White House that we do not need to have all kinds of press comments about the date for hearings. I think what would be more important to do would be to work, as we have in the past, will to get the information necessary; and in the fullness of time, we will have an appropriate hearing. I will do it--working, of course, with Senator Specter--and, as I think we have demonstrated before, we will have a hearing that will make the Senate proud. Both Republicans and Democrats, with the complete record before them, then will be able to ask all the appropriate questions, the questions of course that the American public wants and deserves to have us ask.

Mr. President, in 2005, President Bush praised the Iraqi people for exercising the Democratic right to vote. He noted that by participating in free elections, the Iraqi people firmly rejected the anti-democratic ideology of the terrorists, and they demonstrated the kind of courage that is always the foundation of self-government. Similar to President Bush, I applaud when anyone has the right to vote and the right to determine where they will go with that right to vote. I wish, though, the President would speak as enthusiastically about voting rights for the American citizens who live literally in his backyard, in the same city where he resides in the White House. It is disappointing that the Bush administration has threatened to veto legislation that would give a vote to the Member of the House of Representatives from the District of Columbia.

I also understand the opponents of this voting rights bill are considering a filibuster to prevent its passage. In a recent column in the Washington Times, former Maryland Governor Michael Steele and former Congressman J.C. Watts, two Republicans, reminded us that the last time a voting rights bill was filibustered was 50 years ago. I was much too young to even vote, but I do remember that filibuster. Despite Senator Thurmond's record-setting effort, the Senate rightfully passed the Civil Rights Act in 1957. It followed up with the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts in 1960, 1964 and 1965. I hope the Senate does not return to the days when it filibustered voting rights, especially for its African-American citizens.

The city of the District of Columbia has approximately the same number of people as the State of Vermont. We are the 14th State in the Union. We have had the right to vote, for Senators and Representatives, for over 200 years. The distinguished Presiding Officer, of course, represents one of the very first States of this Union. In fact, he can proudly represent a State whose forefathers did much to design the United States of America and has provided President after President but especially laid the cornerstone of a great nation. It made it possible for the State of Vermont to be the first State admitted after the original 13.

There is no way I could go back to my State of Vermont and say that the District of Columbia, with almost exactly the same number of people, does not have a voting Member in the House of Representatives. Back in my State, they would say we have two Senators, but at least let us take this step. Let us vote it up or down. Let's not go back to the shameful days of 1957 when such rights were filibustered.

We have had hearings on this in the Senate Judiciary Committee. We have heard compelling testimony.

This month the Judiciary Committee marked the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 with a hearing. Congressman John Lewis, a courageous leader during those transformational struggles only decades ago, gave moving testimony reminding us that ``we in Congress must do all we can to inspire a new generation to fulfill the mission of equal justice.'' While we are observing this golden anniversary, it is fitting that the Senate turn to this important voting rights measure, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act.

I am a cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation to end the unfair treatment of District of Columbia residents and give them full representation in the House of Representatives. I thank the majority leader, Senator Reid, for bringing this timely issue to the Senate for consideration.

In April, the House of Representatives worked in a bipartisan manner to pass their version of a voting rights bill for the District of Columbia, led by Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. As a young lawyer, she worked for civil rights and voting rights around the country. It is a cruel irony that upon her return to the District of Columbia and election to the House of Representatives she does not yet have the right to vote on behalf of the people of the District of Columbia who elected her. She is a strong voice in Congress but the people of the District of Columbia deserve a vote, as well.

This is not the time for further delay. It is the Senate's turn to do what is right. The Senate bill would give the District of Columbia delegate a full vote in the House. To attract Republican support, the bill offsets that vote for DC by according Utah an additional Representative in the House, as well. This is an effort to provide political balance. With it or without it, I support representation for the District of Columbia.

I believe that the legislation that we are considering today is within Congress's powers as provided in the Constitution. I agree with Congressman Lewis, Congresswoman Norton and numerous other civil rights leaders and constitutional scholars that we should extend the basic right of voting representation to the hundreds of thousands of Americans residing in our Nation's Capital. They pay Federal taxes, defend our country in the military and serve on Federal juries. They are citizens no less than the citizens of any State. Their votes should count. They should be represented.

In May the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on this legislation. We heard compelling testimony.

Retired Chief Judge Patricia Wald testified that this legislation is constitutional and highlighted the fact that Congress's greater power in accordance with the Constitution to confer full statehood on the District certainly contains the lesser power to grant District residents voting rights in the House of Representatives. She also reminded us that Congress has exercised this authority in the past without a rigid adherence to the constitutional text when it granted voting rights to Americans abroad in their last State of residence regardless of whether they are citizens of that State, pay taxes to that State, or have any intent to return to that State. Her former colleague on the DC Circuit, Ken Starr, echoed her conclusion that this legislation is constitutional.

Congress has repeatedly treated the District of Columbia as a ``State'' for various purposes. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton testified that although ``the District is not a State,'' the ``Congress has not had the slightest difficulty in treating the District as a State, with its laws, its treaties, and for constitutional purposes.'' Examples of these actions include a revision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that broadened article III diversity jurisdiction to include citizens of the District even though the Constitution only provides that Federal courts may hear cases ``between citizens of different States.'' Congress has also treated the District as a ``State'' for purposes of congressional power to regulate commerce ``among the several States.'' The 16th amendment grants Congress the power to directly tax incomes ``without apportionment among the several States.'' That constitutional provision has been interpreted also to apply to residents of the District. In fact, the District of Columbia pays the second-highest Federal taxes per capita, yet has no vote in connection with how those dollars are spent. The local license plates say a good deal and remind us of our heritage when they say ``Taxation without Representation.''

As I said, in 2005, President Bush praised the Iraqi people for exercising their democratic right to vote, and he noted that ``by participating in free elections, the Iraqi people have firmly rejected the antidemocratic ideology of the terrorists [a]nd they have demonstrated the kind of courage that is always the foundation of self- government.'' Unfortunately, the President does not speak so enthusiastically about voting rights for the American citizens living literally in his backyard. It is disappointing that the Bush administration has threatened to veto this legislation.

I would say to my colleague from New Hampshire that my staff informs me that they were not consulted by the State Department on this matter.

Mr. President, I am pleased to take this opportunity to commend longtime friends, Harold and Anne Howrigan and their sons of Fairfield, VT, whose farm was recently named 2007 Vermont Dairy Farm of the Year.

Harold, his wife Anne and their sons operate two farms comprised of more than 500 head of holstein cattle and some 1,800 acres of cropland and forest, including a significant maple sugaring operation. The Howrigan farm was selected by University of Vermont Extension and the Vermont Dairy Industry Association, who described it as an excellent, well managed dairy operation which consistently produces high-quality milk. With some of the farm acreage in the family since the mid 19th Century, the Howrigan family indeed exemplifies a long-term commitment to agriculture.

As much as he loves the home farm, over the years Harold has spent considerable time away from the farm serving Vermont agriculture. He has served as president of the Green Mountain Dairy Farmers Federation of Cooperatives and as a director with both the Vermont Maple Sugar Makers Association and the Vermont Dairy Promotion Council. Harold has served on the St. Albans Cooperative board of directors since 1981 and as president from 1988 until stepping down in 2005.

At one time or another, Harold was chairperson of the Vermont Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact Commission, chair of the Council of Northeast Farmer Cooperatives and chair of the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board. He also served on the U.S. Dairy Export Council and the National Milk Producers Federation.

With this level of engagement in the interest of dairy farmers and their industry, it is a tribute to Harold, Anne and their sons to earn this distinguished award. I join my fellow Vermonters in recognizing a Vermont dairy farm--and family--with its tradition of hard work, common sense and love of agriculture as the 2007 Vermont Dairy Farm of the Year.

Mr. President, I understand the Senator from North Carolina is on the floor and wishes to speak. Obviously, I will yield her more time if she wants, but I ask unanimous consent that she be yielded 10 minutes out of the time reserved for the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I note that when we confirm these three nominations today--and I fully anticipate we will; I will support them and I know Senator Specter will support them--the Senate will have confirmed 29 nominations for lifetime appointments by the middle of September this year. That is 7 more than were confirmed in all of 2005 when the Senate had a Republican majority which was considering nominations of this Republican President. I mention that because consistently, for the Republican President, President Bush, when the Democrats have been in charge, we have moved his nominations faster than Republicans have.

You would not know this, certainly, with some of the rhetoric that comes out of the White House; but, you know, sometimes facts get in the way of rhetoric. It is a pesky thing.

Incidentally, there were 12 more confirmations that were achieved during the entire 1996 session, when Republicans stalled consideration of President Clinton's nominations by pocket-vetoing them. It is actually a little-known fact that during the Bush Presidency, more circuit judges, more district judges, and more total judges have been confirmed in the time we have had Democrats in control and I have been chairman, than during the 10 years that either of the two Republican chairmen were working with Republican Senate majorities.

Taking into account today's confirmations, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts lists 46 judicial vacancies. The President has sent us only 24 nominations for these 46 remaining vacancies. Twenty-two of these remaining vacancies--almost half--have no nominee. Of the 19 vacancies deemed by the Administrative Office to be judicial emergencies, the President has yet to send us nominees for 8 of them, more than a third. Of the 16 circuit court vacancies, 6, more than a third, are without a nominee. If the President had worked with the Senators from Michigan, Rhode Island, Maryland, California, New Jersey, and Virginia, we could be in position to make even more progress.

Of the 22 vacancies without any nominee, the President has violated the timeline he set for himself at least 13 times--13 have been vacant without so much as a nominee for more than 180 days. The number of violations may in fact be much higher since the President said he would nominate within 180 days of receiving notice that there would be a vacancy or intended retirement rather than from the vacancy itself. We conservatively estimate that he also violated his own rule 11 times in connection with the nominations he has made. That would mean that with respect to the 46 vacancies, the President is out of compliance with his own rule more than half of the time.

William L. Osteen, Jr., is a partner at the two-person law firm of Adams & Osteen in Greensboro, NC, where he has worked for his entire legal career. His practice focuses primarily on Federal criminal litigation and State civil litigation.

Martin K. Reidinger is a partner at the Asheville, NC, law firm of Adams, Hendon, Carson, Crow & Saenger, where he has worked his entire 23 year legal career as a civil litigator. His legal practice concentrates primarily in the areas of general business litigation, land disputes, municipal matters, and employment law.

Janis L. Sammartino is the presiding judge in the Superior Court of San Diego County in California. For 12 years, she served on the State trial court bench as a municipal court judge in San Diego, and she worked for 18 years as a deputy city attorney in the San Diego City Attorney's Office.

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

How much time is remaining for the Senator from Vermont?

I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.

I see the distinguished Senator from North Carolina and the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, among the important issues I wish to discuss this morning is an important issue, an international border issue with our friends and neighbors in Canada and Mexico, that could have severe implications for the social and economic ways of life for border communities in my own State of Vermont but all across the country.

In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, a number of new border security measures have been put in place, all with the express goal of preventing another terrorist incident. I worked hard to provide balance and needed resources and to ensure that in the intervening years we did not focus solely on our southern border. I also have tried to convey to the administration and to this body something of the special relationship we have with our northern neighbor, Canada.

It is convenient to forget that most of the 9/11 hijackers entered the United States with legal visas. They would not have been stopped at any border. Some were on secret watch lists by this Government, but they were not being watched. And even later on, the Bush administration sent them official letters after they had killed themselves and thousands of innocent people in their attacks. The Bush administration had them on a watch list but did not watch them. In reaction, after these mistakes, the administration has demanded billions of dollars for constructing border fences, seeking to develop and to deploy surveillance technologies, and adding troops along our borders. Now in doing this, we have snared some illicit drug shipments, we have snared a few criminals. We have not picked up many terrorists.

Nobody questions that any country has a right to protect its borders, as we do to protect ours, but we should do it sensibly and intelligently. Instead, the administration's policy threatens to fray the social fabric of countless communities that straddle the border. They have needlessly offended our neighbors, they have sacrificed much of the traditional good will we have enjoyed, and they have undermined our own economy in border States. Local chambers of commerce along the border estimate that the costs of the administration's plans will amount to hundreds of billions of dollars and, I might say, the loss of thousands upon thousands of American jobs.

I have heard from many Vermonters about problems they have encountered at U.S. border crossings, from long traffic backups to invasive searches and questions, to inadequate communications 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.

I live an hour's drive from the Canadian border. Traditionally in my State, as in most border States, people go back and forth all the time. Many of us have family members in Canada. We have enjoyed an over 5,000-mile-long unguarded frontier. Canada has been an important trading partner. It has been a friendly neighbor not only to Vermont but to the rest of the United States for more than 200 years. It is in the best interest of both of our countries to keep those relationships as positive and productive as possible. Post 9/11, everyone on both sides of the border recognized the potential threat and security needs. We have hardened security around the U.S. Capitol, hardened it around 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 road is Vermont and the other side is Quebec. That is actually true. This is a street, an avenue. On one side, you are in Vermont; on the other side, you are in Quebec. What are we going to do, put an enormous barrier down the middle of the street? People are used to going back and forth to their neighbors to borrow a cup of flour or something such as that. Are they going to take two hours to go through some kind of an unnecessary, baseless search?

And we have the Haskell Free Library and Opera House in Derby Line, VT, and Stanstead, Quebec. The library and opera house is half in Derby Line, VT, half in Stanstead, Quebec. It straddles the international border. Mr. President, I invite you to come see that some time. It is a beautiful piece of architecture.

That is why I am so troubled by the so-called Western Hemisphere Travel Initiatives, which would require individuals from the United States, Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean to present passports or other documents proving citizenship before entering the United States. This is a dramatic change in the way border crossings have been processed in the western hemisphere since the Treaty of Paris set up the international boundary to Canada in 1783. That is already costing us greatly.

The Departments of State and Homeland Security have been charged with implementing this law. They should be coordinating their efforts with our neighbors in Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean to ensure a smooth transition at our borders. Unfortunately, as I detailed to Secretary Rice and Secretary Chertoff on several occasions, there are serious problems in the ways in which their agencies have pushed forward with implementation of the

Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, before any of the necessary technology installation, infrastructure upgrades, or training takes place in our border stations. If these critical features of deployment are not in place, we are going to see severe delays at our border, and law-abiding citizens from the United States, Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean will have great difficulties moving between our countries. Most importantly, a hasty implementation without assurances that the technology to be used is truly effective can actually result in a less secure border.

Month after month, and despite hearing after hearing, the Department of Homeland Security, one of the least functional Departments in our Government, and the Department of State has highhandedly rushed to impose this new border crossing plan on the America people before they are ready with the necessary technology, infrastructure, and training, and at every step their rosy assurances to the Congress and the American people have been wrong. The administration's record on implementing the new passport program is clear, and it has been abysmal. Hundreds of Vermonters have been calling my office for assistance in salvaging their travel plans. I know that Americans from other States have experienced high levels of concern and problems as well. We have been doing what we can, passport by passport, but a large backlog persists.

The huge passport backlogs prompted by the launch of DHS's requirement for air travel passports earlier this year are just a taste of the chaos that is likely next summer when they want to start enforcing passport checks at our land and sea borders. DHS, which has difficulty implementing most of their programs, said it will be very easy; look how well it is working for those who are flying to have the passports. They had press conferences, they had announcements, they got their talking points in the press on how well it is working. And then, within weeks, they had to pull it back. Why? Because it was not working. They did not have anything in place to make it work. And that is only about 5 to 10 percent of the actual traffic that will go across these borders. Well, think what is going to happen next summer when they start enforcing passport checks at our land and sea borders. If they cannot handle the small percentage, what is it going to be like when they have to do it for 100 percent?

I have been urging the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security not to rush into establishing rules and procedures that shut our borders to legitimate travel and trade and, instead, work with our neighbors, coordinate with our neighbors on security plans that might actually work. We can be smarter and more effective, rather than arrogantly insulting our traditional friends in Canada and Mexico. We have worked with them on joint intelligence operations to identify and target terrorists. I would much rather see, instead of wasting tens of billions of dollars on a program that is not going to work, lose hundreds of billions of dollars in jobs in America, that we spend a tiny fraction of that talking about our northern border now, working with our friends in Canada, and do a better job of intelligence and identifying possible terrorists.

Unfortunately, my calls and the pleas from border communities from Maine to Alaska--for that matter, from California to Texas--have been largely ignored. This administration is setting the American people up yet again for a fiasco of failure and frustration.

Since DHS and State keep saying WHTI is a congressionally mandated program, they should stop opposing the bicameral and bipartisan flow moving through Congress to shift the new requirement to June of 2009. They have been warned repeatedly that they are not ready. Even the fresh embarrassment of this passport debacle does not humble these arrogant purveyors of a failed program. In the memorable words of President Bush: They are doing a ``heck of a job.'' The incompetence that led to the human and economic tragedy of Katrina and its aftermath, a tragedy that has not been rectified for more than 2 years, is striking again. By maintaining the fiction that they will be ready to implement the largest phase of this program next January, they are recklessly risking the travel plans of millions of Americans, but they are also risking the economies of scores of States and communities.

Today is September 10. Tomorrow is the sixth anniversary of the attacks. I remember that day so well, being right here in Washington. The administration's failure to prevent those attacks, to connect the dots, to take seriously the warnings of Richard Clarke, to listen to FBI field agents in Minnesota and Arizona, all because of the preeminence of its ideological agenda, is no longer subject to denial. Those failures before 9/11 are no excuse to indulge in authoritarian excesses now and in the future.

When we sacrifice our freedoms, Americans lose and the terrorists have taken from us what they cannot by force of arms. As we commemorate the sacrifices of so many that took place 6 years ago tomorrow, we need to rededicate ourselves to American principles and values.

In the days ahead, the Judiciary Committee will be holding a series of hearings into important security matters. Today I am writing to the Director of National Intelligence inviting him to join us on September 25 for a hearing into warrantless surveillance of Americans.

I am not convinced that the sweeping scope and lack of checks and balances in the recently enacted temporary amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act are necessary to address the national security concerns the administration had identified. As elected representatives of the American people, we need to consider whether there are more effective mechanisms to ensure appropriate oversight of surveillance involving U.S. persons. We need to restore the proper balance in order to maintain our security while preserving the constitutional rights of Americans and providing appropriate oversight of executive action involving private communications of Americans.

Just this past weekend, we saw reports indicating that the President's surveillance program of Americans was much more extensive than he had led us to believe. The New York Times reported that the FBI was not just concerned about known or even suspected al-Qaida operatives, as the President spokespeople repeated over and over since the programs became known in December 2005, but with casting a much wider net for information about what they termed a ``community of interest.'' We need to examine how far this so-called link analysis has gone, how far down the daisy chain it has gone, what use was made of the private call information, and whether private information of innocent Americans has been collected and retained in Government databases without any authorization. How many innocent Americans who called someone else, who may have had some innocent contact with someone else, are now in a Government database and suddenly wonder why they didn't get a job promotion or why their child wasn't able to get a student loan? It is telling that as this story became public--this always happens only when it becomes public--the FBI responded by saying that this data is ``no longer being used'' and, of course, ``was used infrequently.'' Is the administration nonetheless going to prevent Congress from obtaining the information it needs to provide appropriate oversight? Will our patriotism be threatened anew if Congress seeks to examine the administration's overreaching and ineffectiveness? I hope not, but we will have to see. The very first hearing we held before the Senate Judiciary Committee this year was on data mining. With the leadership shown by Senator Feingold, we have passed a reporting requirement on Government data mining. Now we need to follow up and get the information we need and exercise oversight authority.

The first week in October, we are looking forward to hearing from Professor Jack Goldsmith, who served at a critical juncture in 2004 as the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel to the Department of Justice. In that capacity, he considered the constitutional underpinnings of the President's program of warrantless wiretapping and helped lead the way to changes in that clandestine surveillance affecting the rights of every single person in this Chamber and all other Americans.

This past week, we were reminded yet again of the need to improve the operations of the Terrorist Screening Center, which failed to make watch list records of suspected known terrorists available to front- line screening agents but continues to list the names of innocent Americans in its watch list database. I won't go through all of the stories that come out of some of these things: a year-old child having to get a passport to fly and prove they are not a 45-year-old terror suspect or one of the most senior Members of the Senate being blocked 10 times from taking a flight he has been taking for 30 or 40 years because he is on a terrorist watch list. Somehow, they got the names mixed up. We saw a recent Government Accountability Office report on the Department of Homeland Security with its failing grades, having failed to achieve half its performance expectations since 2003. If you or I in college were to get a 50 or less on all our exams, we would be out on our ear in a moment. This is what we have seen from the Department of Homeland Security. We heard from an independent commission and former military leaders who indicated the Iraqi police force is so riddled with corruption and sectarianism that they should be disbanded, and after 4 years and hundreds of millions of American taxpayer dollars, we should start over from scratch. We can't even find half the weapons we have given them until they turn up in terrorist hands. But we send these hundreds of millions of dollars to the Iraqi police force and we tell the police in America: We have to cut out the COPS Program. We don't have money for our American police. We can't afford to improve our American police because we have to send hundreds of millions of dollars to the Iraqi police. If I have to call a police officer, I am going to call an American police officer. I would like to know that some of that money was spent on them.

This past week also provided a reminder of the need to refocus our efforts on bin Laden. Six years after 9/11, he has not been brought to justice but continues to taunt us. He should never have been allowed to escape when our forces had him cornered in Tora Bora. One of the greatest mistakes of this administration--not counting the great mistakes made before 9/11--was withdrawing our special forces and not providing the support needed. That was another mistake driven by ideology. Think how much better it would be today had they actually succeeded in the one thing the whole Congress agreed on--to go and get bin Laden. They failed. The bipartisan leaders of the 9/11 Commission are right that the occupation of Iraq has provided a recruiting bonanza for al-Qaida and a costly distraction. Iraq, a country that didn't have al-Qaida, is now a recruiting bonanza for them. We need to be smarter and more focused in countering terrorism.

How many costly mistakes are the American people going to be asked to bear? I hope all Senators, Republicans and Democrats, will join together in the days ahead as we did 6 years ago, when so many of us stood on this floor and joined hands to do the things that needed to be done. The American people deserve a government that works and that works for them. American freedom and values need to be defended and reinforced, not mortgaged to fleeting and ill-considered promises of security.

Mr. President, last Thursday, September 6, after less than 12 hours of debate, the Senate passed by a vote of 81 to 12 the fiscal year 2008 State, Foreign Operations appropriations bill. I think it was the shortest amount of time we have taken to debate and pass this bill. I also think that on the whole we can be satisfied with the outcome. It is a bipartisan bill, and while neither I nor Senator Gregg, the ranking member of the subcommittee who played an indispensable role in getting it done, supports every provision in the bill, that is the nature of the process.

I also know there are things in this bill the administration supports and things they don't like. I would remind them that our allocation was $700 million below the President's budget, and the President underfunded a number of programs that have strong bipartisan support-- the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and malaria, to give one example. I would hope the White House would recognize that we tried hard to fund not only the President's priorities but also the requests of Senators of both parties. This is, as sometimes the White House needs to be reminded, a government of equal branches.

Senate conferees were named immediately after final passage, and I look forward to sitting down with the House to finish this bill so we can send it to the President for signature as soon as possible.

Mr. President, the last vote on the State, Foreign Operations bill did not occur until late at night, and Senators were anxious to go home. I want to take this opportunity to again thank Senator Gregg and his staff, Paul Grove, minority clerk for the subcommittee, whose good humor and penchant for thoroughness and bipartisanship have served the committee extremely well. I also want to thank Michele Wymer, who joined the subcommittee's minority staff this year. Michele has been a pleasure to work with. She did a superb job last week on the floor keeping track of the flurry of amendments.

On the majority side, I want to thank Kate Eltrich, who for the past 5 years has handled the State Department Operations appropriations. Kate's budgetary skills, dating from her time at OMB during the Clinton administration, are a great asset to the subcommittee. She has done an excellent job and is someone whose judgment I have great confidence in. Nikole Manatt joined the subcommittee staff earlier this year, and she has already distinguished herself as energetic, willing and capable of taking on any project, and is a pleasure to work with. J.P. Dowd, my legislative director, spent most of last Thursday on the Senate floor helping out in more ways than I can count. I want to thank Tim Rieser, the majority clerk, who has worked for the Senate for 22 years, either as a staff member in my office or, since 1989, for the Appropriations Committee. Tim was my lead staff member on this bill. Tim and Paul Grove have worked together to draft these bills year after year, and to deal with the amendments on the floor. Last Thursday, we disposed of 73 amendments. That is no small feat, and the staff deserves our thanks for the long hours and hard work that made it possible.

Among the other Appropriations Committee staff whose contributions to this process were indispensable are Richard Larson and his outstanding staff in Editorial and Printing, and chief clerk Bob Putnam and Jack Conway, who make sure our numbers add up as they are supposed to.

The funds in this bill support lifesaving programs for the poorest people in Africa. They help protect the economic and security interests of this country and our allies from South America to South Asia. In a world as complex and dangerous as this, we should be doing far more to exert U.S. leadership, particularly in countries and regions plagued by poverty, injustice, and conflict or where the United States is regarded unfavorably or misunderstood. We have done our best

with what we have to spend, and if used wisely, the funds in this bill will advance U.S. interests and improve the lives of countless people less fortunate than we are.

Mr. President, I compliment my colleagues for moving so rapidly through the Military Construction legislation. It brings us to the State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill, which Senator Gregg, my friend and neighbor from New Hampshire, and I will be handling. I want to make a couple comments.

If there are Senators who have amendments, I urge that they bring them to the floor. I understand because of the policy luncheons, it will probably be about an hour before we get to an amendment. But if there aren't any amendments pending, it would be my intent, if the Senator from New Hampshire has none, to go to final passage. We would like to wrap up this bill, if we can, today. I thank both Senator Reid and Senator McConnell for calling up this bill. I also thank Chairman Byrd and Ranking Member Cochran for the allocation we have.

I do want to say, at the risk of causing political problems for him back in my neighboring State of New Hampshire, how appreciative I am to Senator Gregg and his staff for the bipartisan way they worked with me and my staff. Senator McConnell and I had established this way of doing things for a number of years, when he was chairman and I was chairman. We realized that, almost like the Vandenberg rule, bipartisanship has to begin at the water's edge. We have tried to do that with this bill.

We have a balanced bill. When it was reported out of the Appropriations Committee, 28 of the 29 members of the committee voted for it.

As a housekeeping matter, I remind Senators that on August 2, 2007, by a vote of 83 to 14, the Senate approved S. 1, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, clearing the measure for the President. This act will significantly improve transparency and accountability in the legislative process.

The President has not yet signed it, but I want to inform Senators that we intend to abide by the requirements of that legislation during the consideration of this bill. The legislation requires that the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction certify that certain information related to congressionally directed spending be identified and that the required information be available on a publicly accessible congressional Web site in a searchable format at least 48 hours before a vote. The information required includes the identification of the congressionally directed spending and the name of the Senator who requested it.

With regard to this legislation, I notify my colleagues that the committee bill and report do not include any congressionally directed spending as defined by S. 1. A description of how the committee addresses this issue is contained in the committee report numbered 110- 128, dated July 10 of this year. It has been on the Internet for a couple months.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the certification by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Senator Gregg and I did, of course, do our best to address the many requests we received. We have made some difficult choices. The bill contains a total of $34.4 billion in budget authority. The President has threatened to veto all appropriations bills that are above his budget request. This bill is $700 million below the President's budget request. In case anybody did not hear that, it is $700 million below the President's budget request.

We have a significant increase for State Department and U.S. Embassy operations and security costs. We provide $1.35 billion for assessed contributions to international peacekeeping missions. These are peacekeeping missions the U.S. Government has voted for in Sudan, Liberia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Lebanon, and other nations.

We provide $5.09 billion to combat HIV/AIDS. That is $940 million above the President's request but within the overall budget limits. This includes $590 million for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. Added to the $300 million in the Labor, Health and Human Services bill, it is a total of $890 million for the Global Fund, an increase of $166 above last year's budget.

The bill contains $476.5 million for Child Survival and Maternal Health. These programs address the most basic public health needs in the world's poorest countries.

In our country, we are blessed with so many riches. For a child born here, almost always maternal health care and child health care is available. They

can believe the water they are going to drink will be clean water. They can be given a schedule where the child will be given certain shots, inoculations, and so on, at certain times. In all likelihood--barring an accident or rare disease--that child is going to grow up.

In so many of these other countries, they do not even list a child's birth until they are 2 years old because of the enormous number who die either in childbirth, where the mother can die also, or die of diseases easily controlled--dysentery, malaria, things such as that--before the child is even old enough to walk.

I would say it is not an economic issue with us. We are blessed with the wealthiest, most powerful nation on Earth. We are so blessed. I think it is a moral responsibility for us to help in these areas.

We provide $509 million for educational and cultural exchange programs, particularly to build bridges with predominantly Muslim countries. We should have these exchanges. We should have as many students coming to America as possible, and as many of our students going over to these other countries as possible. Maybe they will learn some languages. Maybe they will learn different cultures. Maybe our own students will come back having learned there is a world outside our borders, but those who come here will learn something about the United States.

We provide lifesaving programs for millions of destitute refugees and displaced persons in Darfur, Iraq, the Middle East, and Colombia. More than 4 million Iraqis have fled their homes. Many of these people have worked for the U.S. Government or U.S. contractors or the U.S. news media and are being targeted because of those affiliations. They cannot even get help in getting out of there. They supported us. Now--whether one was for or opposed to the war in Iraq, these people helped us--it is time for us to help them. Other Iraqis are being killed simply because they are academic scholars or officials of Iraq's Ministry of Education. We have a moral responsibility to help these people.

There is up to $1 billion in the bill for humanitarian and reconstruction programs in Afghanistan to help counter the resurgence of the Taliban and al-Qaida.

The bill provides $1.2 billion for the Millennium Challenge Corporation. We support the Millennium Challenge Corporation, but they have had $6 billion appropriated since 2004, and they have only disbursed about $100 million. I felt they ought to use some of the undisbursed money they already have, to give us some of the other money for much greater needs.

There are provisions in the bill considering international family planning the President said he would veto. That is no surprise. We have had these provisions in past bills. These are the same provisions that have been in the State, Foreign Operations appropriations bill year after year. Every year, the President says he will veto it because of it. We will have time for that debate later on.

But I recall what Senator Mark Hatfield, the then-chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said. Mark Hatfield--a strong right- to-lifer, as strongly opposed to abortion as anybody else I have ever met--pointed out those family planning moneys actually cut down on abortions around the world. When they have been cut off, abortions have gone up. Sometimes we should get beyond the sloganeering.

President Reagan, God rest his soul, used to give some speeches about how we needed a Constitutional amendment to ban abortions. Of course, he never supported one here and never asked to have one introduced. But it was a great speech. Many objected to President Clinton because he was pro-choice. Now we are back to somebody who is a right-to-lifer. But do you know what. As a matter of curiosity, abortions went up under President Reagan. They went down under President Clinton. Now they are going back up again. I wish we would never have abortions, but let us give alternatives to abortion in family planning. Sometimes the reality shames the rhetoric. The fact is, abortions went up during President Reagan's time, and they went down during President Clinton's time, and they are going back up now.

The same thing can happen here. Give people family planning money and abortions will go down. We saw this in Russia. We have seen it categorically in other parts of the world. But that will be a debate for later on.

My main point coming here was to say we would not have gotten the bill out with this kind of huge bipartisan support without the strong help of the former Governor, now Senator, Judd Gregg.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I commend Senator Gregg for his opening statement. I associate myself especially with his comments and concern related to corruption at the World Bank and the U.N. and in our assistance programs in Iraq. We have serious and nonpartisan concerns. These go across the spectrum in this body. We intend to address them. I commend the Senator from New Hampshire for raising them in his statement.

We are trying very much to work out amendments. I hope we can go to third reading.

In saying that, I am reminded of that wonderful part in Henry IV--I am sure the Chair remembers this very well--with Glendower and Hotspur, when Glendower says: I can call spirits from the frothy depths, or something to that effect. And Hotspur says: Well, so can I, so can any man, but will they come when you call them.

The Senator from New Hampshire and I can call them from the depths, but we would just like to have them come when we call them. Staffs are working with a number of people. As soon as we have a finite list of amendments, we are going to go through them. I would hope we can wrap up.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, the distinguished Senator from New Jersey and the distinguished Senator from Florida have been working together on an amendment actually that is part of an overall package that the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire and I are working on with them, and I think we are prepared to move forward on that part of the legislation now. Both of the distinguished Senators are on the floor. Once that is disposed of, we have a few other odds and ends, and I would hope--I have heard there may be some other amendments, and I hope we get to them right away so that maybe we can go to third reading within the next hour or so.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am prepared to accept the amendment, as modified, by the Senators from Florida and New Jersey.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Mexico be recognized for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I shall not, the Senator from Kansas wishes to speak about the amendments now, and there is going to be an amendment or two by Senator Boxer. I hope the Senator will work with us--and the Senator from California, too--to give their

speeches, have the amendments discussed, but before the votes start, we can work out a sequence of votes in a relatively short period of time. It is my understanding that comports with the thinking of the Senator from Kansas. He can speak as long as he wants because he has the floor. Does that comport with his thinking?

I wonder if we might begin with the amendment that says:

On page 308, beginning line 18, strike ``health:'' And all

that follows through page 309, line 4, and insert ``health.''

Can we deal with that first and then go to the next one? If that was the request, I have no objection.

Amendment No. 2708

I am not sure I understand. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the Senator from Kansas suggest the absence of a quorum without yielding the floor?

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

Madam President, I understand the Senator from Kansas has the floor, and I ask if he will yield to me to propose a unanimous consent request.

Madam President, I propose, similar to what the Senator from New Hampshire said, that the Senator from Kansas has the time he already used, plus 30 minutes, during which he will have offered and spoken on or yielded to others to speak on his two amendments, and then the Senator from California have up to 30 minutes, either to speak or to yield to others and to offer her amendment. Then the amendments be set aside to be voted on prior to final passage at a time to be determined by the two managers.

And in an order to be determined by the two managers?

The Senator is right, there will have to be votes on these amendments prior to final passage.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:45 p.m. today, whatever is pending be set aside and the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments in the order listed, with no second-degree amendments in order to the amendments prior to the vote; that prior to each vote there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that after the first vote in sequence, the other votes, if they require a rollcall, be limited to 10 minutes each: the Ensign amendment No. 2700, Lieberman amendment No. 2691, Brownback amendment No. 2707, Boxer amendment No. 2719, and the Brownback amendment No. 2708.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, both Senator Gregg and I will oppose this amendment. In doing so, we are supporting President Bush's number on these dues. The fact is, we can't ask the U.N. to carry out peacekeeping missions unless we pay our dues.

For example, this Congress pushed very hard to have the U.N. do a peacekeeping mission in Darfur just last month. After we pushed for that, they agreed to it. Now we have to do what our own Ambassador says, what President Bush has said, and what the Secretary of State has said: We have to pay our share of peacekeeping operations.

I would hope Senators will join with the distinguished ranking member and myself and oppose this amendment by voting no.

Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

I am voting no and actually supporting the administration on this position.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated on the next amendment.

And the amendment be accepted.

I think the next amendment is 2707.

Mr. President, no one, no one supports forced abortion or forced sterilization. Let's be honest about that. What this is, there is a provision in the U.S. law called the Kemp-Kasten amendment. It is designed to ensure that U.S. Government funds do not go to organizations engaged in coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. We all support that. But the law has been construed differently by the White House to deny funds to the UNFPA because it is a program in China. The irony is they are trying to give alternatives to abortion. They are trying to give alternatives to forced sterilization. If we agree to this amendment, then what we are saying is we will turn our backs on the most populous nation on Earth, a country that is rapidly becoming the largest contributor to global warming, and we will not support a program that will give them alternatives to abortion and forced sterilization.

I oppose the amendment.

Mr. President, I want to commend Senator Boxer for her leadership on this issue of such importance to the health of the world's poorest women.

On his first day in office in January 2001, President Bush, by executive order, with no prior consultation with Congress, reinstated the controversial Mexico City policy on international family planning. The President explained his decision with these words:

It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used

to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote

abortion, either here or abroad. It is therefore my belief

that the Mexico City policy should be restored.

If U.S. law did, in fact, permit taxpayer funds to be used to pay for or promote abortions overseas, then the President might have had a point. But our law does not allow that. Our law explicitly prohibits any U.S. funds from being used for abortion or to promote abortion.

That is the settled law of the United States. It was passed by the Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. It is something we have all supported. In fact, it has been the law for as long as I can remember, even during past administrations. It is already against the law to use taxpayer funds for purposes related to abortion. Somebody should have told that to President Bush.

In fact, the Mexico City policy, which he reinstated and has maintained ever since, goes much, much further. Many have called it a ``global gag rule.'' It prohibits taxpayer funds from being used to support private family planning organizations, if they use even one dollar of their own private funds--not taxpayer funds, but private funds--to provide advice, counseling, and information about abortions, and to advocate for safe abortion practices in countries where tens of thousands of women suffer injuries or die from complicatlons from unsafe abortions.

If we tried to impose the Mexico City policy on any family planning organization within our borders, it would violate the first amendment. But we impose it on those same organizations when they work overseas beyond the reach of our Constitution.

Proponents of the Mexico City policy say that it will reduce the number of abortions. There is not a shred of evidence to support that illogical argument. The reality is the opposite. The International Planned Parenthood Federation, which is cut off from U.S. Government support because of this policy, used every U.S. tax dollar it received in the past to provide voluntary family planning services, like contraceptives, to couples who lack them. By providing for the first time modern birth control methods to people in countries where abortion was the primary method of birth control, the number of abortions goes down.

I remember the distinguished former Senator from Oregon, Senator Mark Hatfield, a dear friend of mine, one of the most revered Members of this body, who became chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senator Hatfield was fervently pro-life, opposed to abortion, very strong in his beliefs. I remember a debate on the Mexico City policy when he stood here--and he probably said it best. I will quote what he said:

It is a proven fact that when contraceptive services are

not available to women throughout the world, abortion rates

increase. The Mexico City policy is unacceptable to me as

someone who is strongly opposed to abortion.

Contrary to a lot of the press reports, this issue is about far more than abortion. It is about protecting the health of women in desperately poor countries where more than half a million women die each year from complications relating to pregnancy, and where women have little control over their own bodies or their lives. We have the opportunity, at very little expense, to help. Instead--not to save money but to make a political point--we cut off that help.

The Mexico City policy has been the subject of more political posturing, more press releases, more fundraising letters, more debates, more votes, and more Presidential vetoes, than virtually any other issue I can think of.

I remember when President Clinton did the right thing by repealing the Mexico City policy. When he did that, a Republican Congress responded by sharply cutting funding for voluntary family planning--not funding for abortions but for voluntary family planning. President Bush's fiscal year 2008 budget request for family planning does the same thing. His budget would cut it drastically, contrary to what he said he would do back in 2001.

The predictable, tragic result would be an increase in the number of abortions and of deaths of women from botched abortions.

Again, the evidence is indisputable that when family planning services are available, the number of abortions goes down.

I have traveled to many parts of the world. My wife is a registered nurse. She has traveled with me. We have seen how bad the situation is. We have seen how a little help can move women in many parts of the world generations ahead of where they are today.

That is what the Boxer amendment would do. It would restore U.S. credibility and leadership on an issue of great importance to global health, to population growth, to global warming, and to the work of private organizations to make lifesaving services available to the world's poorest women.

Will the Senator from Nevada yield to me?

I hope we will do that. In a few minutes, it will be our intent to begin a series of rollcalls. Apparently, there are a number of amendments Senator Gregg and I were willing to accept, but the Senator said he would prefer having rollcalls. That means we will be here for a few more hours than we needed to be.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

We are willing to have a voice vote on it right now.

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

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, Senator Gregg and I are trying again to get a finite number of amendments. I appreciate that we have had two amendments that could have gone to rollcall votes. We accepted them and saved time. We have a number of other amendments that fall into that same category. But I guess as the hour goes on, people want to demonstrate how good they are, and if we want to accept it, they want a rollcall vote. I have never been able to figure that out, but that is their right. Of course, it keeps everybody here beyond the time we otherwise would have to be here.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the only amendments remaining in order to H.R. 2764 be the following, and a managers' amendment which has been cleared by the managers and the leaders; that there be 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to each amendment equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that no second-degree amendment be in order prior to the vote; and that after the first vote in the sequence, the vote time be limited to 10 minutes each: Coburn amendment No. 2773; Coburn amendment No. 2716; Coburn amendment No. 2706; Coburn amendment No. 2704; Cardin amendment No. 2689; Brown amendment No. 2701; Vitter amendment No. 2774; a Levin sense of the Senate on Iraq refugees; a Kyl amendment on material support; a Coleman amendment on UNDP; Obama amendment No. 2692, with a modification; a Kyl-Leahy sense of the Senate on Egypt; a Bingaman amendment on UNFPA; that upon disposition of all amendments, the bill be read a third time, and without further intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to amend my previous consent request to reflect, where I said Kyl material support. It is Kyl-Leahy material support; and where I said Kyl-Leahy sense of the Senate, Egypt, it is Kyl-Lieberman.

The first one in order will be Coburn No. 2773.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all votes after the first vote be 10-minute votes.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Vitter amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2773

Mr. President, I would yield back time on this. Again, I will always protect any Senator to have the right to vote for whatever reason they want to hold up the Senate at this time of the night, but this one is something everybody is going to vote for, and it could have easily been a voice vote. But if we want to waste time at this time of the night and have a rollcall vote, of course that is a Senator's absolute right, to waste as much time as they may want.

Mr. President, of all programs to cut funding for, it would be hard to think of anything more shortsighted than to cut funding for the Global Environment Facility. Unless, I guess, you are among the dwindling few who still believes global warming is a hoax, that the pollution of the Earth's rivers and sources of drinking water is of no concern, that the destruction of the remaining areas of tropical forests and endangered species does not matter, and that we don't need the ozone layer.

Because that is what the GEF works to protect or prevent, and the United States has been a leader in the GEF and the President has requested the funding in the bill for it.

I yield back my time.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I yield back.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2704

Mr. President, I would hope people would vote against this amendment. It would completely prohibit the World Bank from supporting programs to combat malaria.

We have $1 billion in this bill for the U.S. contribution to the World Bank--money the United States has pledged and President Bush has requested.

Malaria kills a million children a year and infects half a billion people, 95 percent of whom are in Africa. We should do everything we can to combat malaria.

I agree with the administration on this request. I agree with President Bush, who has stated throughout the world his support for these antimalaria matters. I would hope that all people, all Senators of good will and good conscience, would vote no on this amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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, I send a package of amendments, that are agreed to, to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration en bloc and ask that the amendments be deemed to be read en bloc and agreed to en bloc.

Mr. President, before we go to third reading, I wish to thank Senator Gregg for his tireless efforts on this bill and the Members of the Appropriations Committee which passed this bill originally 28 to 1. I will say more about Senator Gregg's staff and my staff tomorrow so as not to hold up third reading.

I thank the Senator from Hawaii for bringing this issue to my attention. I agree about the importance of continuity and momentum in natural resource management research. I will work to ensure that your concerns are communicated to the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development and that the Agency is encouraged to utilize funds appropriated for 2008 to accelerate the RFA process for a Soil, Water, and Ecosystems Services CRSP in 2008.

That is true. I would say to my colleague from Arkansas that this subcommittee is not satisfied with the performance of the Department in the last few months with respect to the adjudication and distribution of passports in a timely fashion. We recognize that a tremendous number of dedicated public servants at all levels of the State Department have been putting in long hours trying to get rid of the backlog in passports. We think it is very important, however, especially as the deadline for implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative gets closer, that the Department be better prepared to handle spikes in demand for passports and to disseminate better information about the procedures and options available for getting expedited passports.

I agree that we should encourage the Department to consider providing such dedicated infrastructure, especially if it will help to alleviate the backlogs that have occurred all over the country.

I share Senator Boxer's concern about extrajudicial violence in the Philippines and will continue to monitor this situation carefully. I will consider additional limitations on future U.S. military assistance if the Philippine Government fails to adequately address this issue.

Mr. President, if I might answer my friend, the senior Senator from New Mexico, it is my understanding from the leadership that this will be the final vote tonight. I understand the leadership has scheduled something for tomorrow morning, but this will be the final vote tonight.

Mr. President, I am advised by the leader there will be one vote tomorrow at 10:15.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination.

May I make a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. President, we have before us two pieces of legislation; am I correct?

Would the Chair please state who the sponsors are of the two individual pieces of legislation?

I thank the Chair.

Would the Senator yield for another question? I also note in here S. 1927 basically gives a great deal----

Mr. President, the Rockefeller-Levin bill might not be precisely the bill I would have written to fix the problem, but it is a responsible and targeted fix to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, problem that has been identified. It is an appropriate response to the need expressed by Director of National Intelligence McConnell regarding our foreign intelligence collection overseas. In addition, it tries to preserve some balance and some protections for the civil liberties of Americans by keeping the FISA Court involved when there are significant communications to and from the United States.

I have been briefed by the DNI and his staff and met with him several times recently about a problem that our intelligence agencies are having in collecting information from overseas. I have said that I am willing to fix this problem, and I am. I have proposed ways to fix this identified problem. It might not be everything he would like, his wish list, but it solves his problem. The Congress has shown that it is willing and able to reform FISA when changes are needed. We have done so many times since FISA was first passed in 1978 and at least half a dozen times since September 11, 2001. I believe such a targeted, responsible fix is justified.

To achieve that fix, I would vote for Rockefeller-Levin. We could enact the needed change immediately. As I have indicated, it is not everything that I would have wanted or drafted precisely as I would have written it. But it does the job and achieves a better balance than any viable alternative. I have worked with Senator Rockefeller for weeks on this matter and appreciate his leadership on this matter, as well as that of Senator Levin.

The problem our intelligence agencies are having is with targeting communications overseas. We want them to be able to intercept calls between two people overseas with a minimum of difficulty. Obviously, the situation is complicated when people overseas might be talking to people here in the United States. These calls could be innocent conversations of businesspeople, tourists, our troops overseas to their families, or to other friends or family in the United States. We should want to give the Government great flexibility to listen to foreign-to- foreign calls, while still protecting privacy of innocent Americans by making sure the Government gets warrants when they are involved.

The Rockefeller-Levin bill accomplishes both of these things. It provides a very flexible standard up front for the Government--it is only required to go to the court for approval of procedures for how it will know that the targets are, in fact, overseas. There is no case-by- case application and approval of warrants for these overseas targets. There is even an initial emergency provision that would allow the Government to start these interceptions before the court has done anything.

To protect Americans, the House bill requires the Government to have guidelines--and show them to the Congress--for how it will determine when a target is having regular communications with the United States. Then they need to go back to the regular FISA procedures and show probable cause. Also, the Department of Justice inspector general must do an audit of the conduct under this bill to see how much information about people in the United States is being collected and must provide that audit to the court and Congress. Because this process has been so expedited and the issues involved are so significant, the bill would sunset in 180 days, so the Congress and the administration will have an opportunity to review it and act in a more deliberative way on these important issues.

Some things were added here that I might not have done. It now applies to all foreign intelligence targets, not just those involving international terrorism. It also does not require the court to review and approve the guidelines for handling significant communications with the United States, only the Congress sees this. These aspects trouble me. They are significant. The Director of National Intelligence has said that with these changes, the bill solves his problems and would significantly enhance our national security. This bill should resolve the matter, but this administration does not know how to take ``yes'' for an answer.

Regrettably, what has come over from the administration and has been introduced here by Senator Bond and Senator McConnell goes far beyond what the DNI said he needs and I fear would be very harmful to the civil liberties of Americans. The bill the administration has proposed is a vast rewrite of the FISA law that undercuts the purposes of that act in significant ways. What the administration has done is leverage a fixable problem into passage of a wish list of ways to give the Attorney General and through him the White House virtual unfettered authority to conduct surveillance. It would take away any meaningful role for the FISA Court for calls between overseas and the United States. In fact, because it is not restricted to terrorism but involves any foreign intelligence, the administration's bill gives them far greater authority than they had claimed in their secret, warrantless surveillance program.

This bill allows Attorney General Gonzales to order surveillance. This Attorney General is in charge of decisions about when to conduct surveillance and can instruct the court to enforce those decisions. In effect, the only role for the court under this bill is as an enforcement agent--it is to rubberstamp the Attorney General's decisions and use its authority to order telephone companies to comply. The court would be stripped of its authority to serve as a check and to protect the privacy of people within the United States. Their bill likewise requires no review or audit by the Justice Department or anyone else about the number of U.S. communications that are being gathered by these orders.

I believe it is important to solve the problem our intelligence agencies are having right now. It is also essential to preserve the critical role of the FISA Court in protecting civil liberties of Americans. The House bill will do both of these things better than its alternatives.

Mr. President, one of the first actions I took this year was to reintroduce the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007, S. 378, on January 24, 2007. This bipartisan bill has a dozen cosponsors here in the Senate. In February we held a Judiciary Committee hearing at which we heard from Justice Anthony Kennedy. In March the Judiciary Committee considered and then reported the bill by unanimous consent.

I thank the majority leader and the assistant majority leader for their interest in these matters. Each has witnessed violence against judges in their home States. With their leadership, in April the Senate was called upon to consider the measure. I was amazed when it took a cloture motion to proceed to consideration of court security. Cloture on the motion to proceed was obtained by a vote of 93 to 3. Thereafter, this important measure was considered and passed by the Senate on April 19 by a unanimous vote of 97 to 0. Not a single Senator voted against it, not even those Senators who objected to proceeding to the bill initially or the three Senators who voted against cloture on the motion to proceed.

A companion bill was considered by the House of Representatives and passed on a voice vote. To resolve the remaining difference between the Senate-passed measure and the House-passed measure we sought to substitute the Senate-passed text into the House bill and to request a House-Senate conference. This is hardly a novel procedure. It is a standard way to resolve differences and to complete action on legislation. This routine request has cleared the Democratic side of the aisle here in the Senate. No Democratic Senator has objected to proceeding. But, once again, an anonymous objection on the Republican side is thwarting progress. Just as Republican Senators objected to proceeding to consider legislation to bolster court security in April, now, an anonymous Republican objection is preventing the Senate from acting, requesting a conference and moving forward to resolve the differences and enact this long overdue legislation. Despite the broad bipartisan support for both the Senate bill and for the House bill, we are being blocked from going to conference to resolve the minor differences between them by an anonymous Republican Senator.

This obstruction delays the useful provisions in these bills and threatens important safety measures for our Federal judges and their families. For our justice system to function, our judges must be able to dispense justice. They and their families must be free from the fear of retaliation. Witnesses who come forward must be protected, and the courthouses where our laws are enforced must be secure. We are in danger of letting this chance to improve the security of our Federal courts slip through our fingers. I am disappointed and troubled that we will not be improving the security for our Federal judges and courthouses around the Nation before we go into recess.

I hope that the Republican Senator who has placed this anonymous objection would remove it, to let us go to conference, and to let us improve the security that our Federal courts need.