Floor Statements

Mr. President, after the overthrow of Ethiopia's brutal former Prime Minister Mengistu, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi ushered in a period of hope and optimism. On May 15, 2005, Ethiopia held its first open multiparty elections. The international community praised the people of Ethiopia for an astounding 90 percent voter participation rate, an encouraging beginning to a new political process. The Ethiopian people deserve a democratic process in which opposition parties can organize and participate, and journalists can publish freely, without fear of arrest or retribution. Unfortunately, as it turned out, the 2005 election was not the turning point many had hoped for.

Early polls suggested the opposition Coalition for Unity and Democracy Party would make gains in the Ethiopian Parliament that could threaten the control of Prime Minister Meles' ruling Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front. These reports were followed by credible allegations of manipulation of the vote-counting process. When the government finally announced results that assured its continued hold on power, thousands of people took to the streets in protest. The police arrested over 30,000 people and some 193 people were killed. Although most of the protesters were released soon after their arrest, 70 opposition leaders and journalists remained in prison.

Following these events, I wrote to Ethiopia's Ambassador Kassahun Ayele and officials at the State Department to express my concern with the imprisonment of the Ethiopian politicians. Human rights organizations and other international figures condemned the detentions and urged Prime Minister Meles to release them. These efforts were to no avail.

Some detainees remained in jail for over 2 years before being brought to trial in a manner that was incompatible with international standards of justice. Last month, they were convicted of such vague charges as ``outrage against the constitution'' and ``inciting armed opposition.'' They were

stripped of their rights to vote and to run for public office. Several were sentenced to life in prison. Nothing was done to prosecute the police officers who fired on the protesters. The situation had gone from bad to worse.

Then suddenly, less than 2 weeks ago, the Ethiopian Government announced the pardon and release of 38 opposition leaders. I am pleased that Prime Minister Meles heeded the pleas of the Ethiopian people and the international community and released these prisoners. The fact is, none of them should have been arrested or tried in the first place. Their release was long overdue and is welcome.

I hope the government acts expeditiously to release the remaining political detainees, and bring to justice police officers who used excessive force. I also hope the negotiations that resulted in the prisoners' release will lead to further discussions between the government and the leaders of the opposition, to ensure that their political rights are fully restored and that future elections are not similarly marred.

While this news is positive, it comes at a time when journalists and representatives of humanitarian organizations report human rights abuses of civilians, including torture, rape and extrajudicial killings, by Ethiopian security forces, including those trained and equipped by the U.S., in the Ogaden region.

Congressman Donald Payne, chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, and a vocal defender of human rights and democracy in Ethiopia, inserted into the Congressional Record a June 18, 2007, New York Times article that described these abuses.

This situation is also addressed in the Senate version of the fiscal year 2008 State, Foreign Operations Appropriations bill and report, which were reported by the Appropriations Committee on July 10. The Appropriations Committee seeks assurance from the State Department that military assistance for Ethiopia is being adequately monitored and is not being used against civilians by units of Ethiopia's security forces. We need to know that the State Department is investigating these reports. We also want to see effective measures by the Ethiopian Government to bring to justice anyone responsible for such abuses.

Unfortunately, it appears that the Bush administration has made little effort to monitor military aid to Ethiopia. It is no excuse that the Ethiopian military has impeded access to the Ogaden, as it has done. In fact, this should give rise to a sense of urgency. If we cannot properly investigate these reports, and if the Leahy law which prohibits U.S. assistance to units of foreign security forces that violate human rights is not being applied because the U.S. Embassy cannot determine the facts, then we should not be supporting these forces.

As if the allegations of human rights violations were not enough, the New York Times reported on July 22 that the Ethiopian military is blocking food aid to the Ogaden region. The article also claimed that the military is ``siphoning off millions'' of dollars intended for food aid and a UN polio eradication program. A subsequent article on July 26 indicated that the World Food Program and the Ethiopian Government have reached agreement, after weeks of discussions, on a process for getting food aid through the military blockade to civilians in the Ogaden region. But the same article also reported that regional Ethiopian officials have expelled the Red Cross.

During the Cold War we supported some of the world's most brutal, corrupt dictators because they were anti-Communist. Their people, and our reputation, suffered as a result. Now the White House seems to support just about anyone who says they are against terrorism, no matter how undemocratic or corrupt. It is short sighted, it tarnishes our image, and it will cost us dearly in the long term.

Prime Minister Meles has been an ally against Islamic extremism in the Horn of Africa, for which we are grateful. But there are serious concerns with Ethiopia's U.S.-supported military invasion of Somalia. It has led to some of the same problems associated with the Bush administration's misguided decision to invade Iraq without a plan for leaving the country more stable and secure than before the overthrow of Saddam. Iraq's partition now seems only a matter of time, and it is hard to be optimistic that Somalia a year from now will be any more secure, or any less of a threat to regional stability, than before the influx of Ethiopian troops.

Ethiopia is also a poor country that has faced one natural or man- made disaster after another, and the U.S. has responded with hundreds of millions of dollars in humanitarian and other assistance. We have a long history of supporting Ethiopia and its people, and we want to continue that support. But our support to the government is not unconditional. We will not ignore the unlawful imprisonment of political opponents or the mistreatment of journalists. We will not ignore reports of abuses of civilians by Ethiopian security forces

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has passed the Leahy-Cornyn Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act'' (the ``OPEN Government Act''), S. 849, before adjourning for the August recess. This important Freedom of Information Act legislation will strengthen and reinvigorate FOIA for all Americans.

For more than four decades, FOIA has translated the great American values of openness and accountability into practice by guaranteeing access to government information. The OPEN Government Act will help ensure that these important values remain a cornerstone of our American democracy.

I commend the bill's chief Republican cosponsor, Senator John Cornyn, for his commitment and dedication to passing FOIA reform legislation this year. Since he joined the Senate 5 years ago, Senator Cornyn and I have worked closely together on the Judiciary Committee to ensure that FOIA and other open government laws are preserved for future generations. The passage of the OPEN Government Act is a fitting tribute to our bipartisan partnership and to openness, transparency and accountability in our government.

I also thank the many cosponsors of this legislation for their dedication to open government and I thank the Majority Leader for his strong support of this legislation. I am also appreciative of the efforts of Senator Kyl and Senator Bennett in helping us to reach a compromise on this legislation, so that the Senate could consider and pass meaningful FOIA reform this legislation before the August recess.

But, most importantly, I especially want to thank the many concerned citizens who, knowing the importance of this measure to the American people's right to know, have demanded action on this bill. This bill is endorsed by more than 115 business, public interest, and news organizations from across the political and ideological spectrum, including the American Library Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, OpenTheGovernment.org, Public Citizen, the Republican Liberty Caucus, the Sunshine in Government Initiative and the Vermont Press Association. The invaluable support of these and many other organizations is what led the opponents of this bill to come around and support this legislation.

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

Restoring meaningful deadlines for agency action under FOIA;

Imposing real consequences on federal agencies for missing FOIA's 20- day statutory deadline;

Clarifying that FOIA applies to government records held by outside private contractors;

Establishing a FOIA hotline service for all federal agencies; and

Creating a FOIA Ombudsman to provide FOIA requestors and federal agencies with a meaningful alternative to costly litigation.

Specifically, the OPEN Government Act will protect the public's right to know, by ensuring that anyone who gathers information to inform the public, including freelance journalist and bloggers, may seek a fee waiver when they request information under FOIA. The bill ensures that federal agencies will not automatically exclude Internet blogs and other Web-based forms of media when deciding whether to waive FOIA fees. In addition, the bill also clarifies that the definition of news media, for purposes of FOIA fee waivers, includes free newspapers and individuals performing a media function who do not necessarily have a prior history of publication.

The bill also restores meaningful deadlines for agency action, by ensuring that the 20-day statutory clock under FOIA starts when a request is received by the appropriate component of the agency and requiring that agency FOIA offices get FOIA requests to the appropriate agency component within 10 days of the receipt of such requests. The bill allows federal agencies to toll the 20-day clock while they are awaiting a response to a reasonable request for information from a FOIA requester on one occasion, or while the agency is awaiting clarification regarding a FOIA fee assessment. In addition, to encourage agencies to meet the 20-day time limit, the bill prohibits an agency from collecting search fees if it fails to meet the 20-day deadline, except in the case of exceptional circumstances as defined by the FOIA statute.

The bill also addresses a relatively new concern that, under current law, federal agencies have an incentive to delay compliance with FOIA requests until just before a court decision that is favorable to a FOIA requestor. The Supreme Court's decision in Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep't of Health and Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001), eliminated the ``catalyst theory'' for attorneys' fees recovery under certain federal civil rights laws. When applied to FOIA cases, Buckhannon precludes FOIA requesters from ever being eligible to recover attorneys fees under circumstances where an agency provides the records requested in the litigation just prior to a court decision that would have been favorable to the FOIA requestor. The bill clarifies that Buckhannon does not apply to FOIA cases. Under the bill, a FOIA requester can obtain attorneys' fees when he or she files a lawsuit to obtain records from the government and the government releases those records before the court orders them to do so. But, this provision would not allow the requester to recover attorneys' fees if the requester's claim is wholly insubstantial.

To address concerns about the growing costs of FOIA litigation, the bill also creates an Office of Government Information Services in the National Archives and creates an ombudsman to mediate agency-level FOIA disputes. In addition the bill ensures that each federal agency will appoint a Chief FOIA Officer, who will monitor the agency's compliance with FOIA requests, and a FOIA Public Liaison who will be available to FOIA to resolve FOIA related disputes.

Finally, the bill does several things to enhance the agency reporting and tracking requirements under FOIA. Tracking numbers are not required for FOIA requests that are anticipated to take ten days or less to process. The bill creates a tracking system for FOIA requests to assist members of the public and the media. The bill also establishes a FOIA hotline service for all federal agencies, either by telephone or on the Internet, to enable requestors to track the status of their FOIA requests.

In addition, the bill also clarifies that FOIA applies to agency records that are held by outside private contractors, no matter where these records are located. And to create more transparency about the use of statutory exemptions under FOIA, the bill ensures that FOIA statutory exemptions that are included in legislation enacted after the passage of this bill clearly cite the FOIA statute and clearly state the intent to be exempt from FOIA.

The Freedom of Information Act is critical to ensuring that all American citizens can access information about the workings of their government. But, after four decades this open government law needs to be strengthened. I am pleased that the reforms contained in the OPEN Government Act will ensure that FOIA is reinvigorated so that it works more effectively for the American people.

I am also pleased that, by passing this important reform legislation today, the Senate has reaffirmed the principle that open government is not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. But, rather, it is an American issue and an American value. I commend all of my Senate colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, for unanimously passing this historic FOIA reform measure. I hope that the House of Representatives, which overwhelmingly passed a similar measure earlier this year, will promptly take up and pass this bill and that the President will then promptly sign it into law.

Mr. President, I wish to express my support for the passage of the Children's Health Insurance Program reauthorization. This is a vitally important program that ensures some of the most vulnerable among us, our children, have access to the health care they deserve. There is no question that we are a country with a health care crisis. In the richest, most powerful country in the world, it is a disgrace that we have 47 million people with no health coverage. Addressing this national priority is long overdue, so I am especially pleased that this new Congress will take action by extending health care coverage to millions of children.

Congress created this program 10 years ago to provide coverage to children whose families earned too much to qualify for Medicaid, but lacked health care coverage through their employer or the private market. At that time, there were more than ten million children who were uninsured. In the last decade, we have seen the success of the Children's Health Insurance Program; it has covered over 6 million low- income children, providing consistent quality health care.

With the success of this program, it is appropriate that we renew it for 5 more years, but also extend it so that millions of additional low-income, uninsured children will now have health coverage. This expansion is critically important because through CHIP children have far better access to preventive and primary care services than they would if they were uninsured. With more routine health care, we know that kids have better health outcomes and perform better in schools.

Studies have also shown that approximately 6 million children are eligible for public coverage but are not enrolled in CHIP. I am pleased that the Finance Committee has been able to craft a bill that would cover 3.2 million children, but I do hope that we can go even further and expand this coverage to additional children. Because uninsured children are nine times less likely to receive needed health care on time and are more likely to go without a visit to a doctor's office, we need to cover as many of them as possible.

My State of Vermont has been a leader when it comes to covering kids. We are referred to an early expansion State because prior to the creation of this program, Vermont extended Medicaid coverage to low- income children through a program known as Dr. Dynasaur. The bill before the Senate would allow Vermont to maintain coverage for the kids currently covered, but also reach out to the remaining children that are eligible but not enrolled in the program.

The Finance Committee proposal would also have a positive impact on health care by increasing the tobacco tax. This action will have a significant affect on our country's health, reducing the rate of cancer, strokes and heart attacks. Further, an increase in the tobacco tax will also reduce the prevalence of smoking, especially among adolescents. We know that when cigarettes become more expensive, both kids and adults will change how much they smoke. This is a positive outcome and one that I support.

I appreciate the hard work that has gone into crafting this bipartisan legislation. I believe it puts the country on the right track towards ensuring all children have health insurance and I strongly support it.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Cornyn to introduce the Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act of 2007, a bill that will strengthen and clarify key aspects of Federal criminal law and provide new tools to help investigators and prosecutors attack public corruption nationwide. This is the time to restore the faith of the American people in their Government. Congress took an important step in that direction today in passing long-awaited ethics and lobbying reforms that will tighten restrictions on those of us who hold public office, and those who seek to lobby us on behalf of private industry. But rooting out the kinds of rampant public corruption we have seen in recent years requires us to go further and to give prosecutors the tools they need to effectively investigate and prosecute criminal public corruption offenses.

The most serious corruption cannot be prevented only by changing our own rules. Bribery and extortion are committed by people bent on getting around the rules and banking that they will not get caught. These offenses are very difficult to detect and even harder to prove. Because they attack the core of our democracy, these offenses must be found out and punished. Congress must send a signal that it will not tolerate this corruption by providing better tools for Federal prosecutors to combat it. This b1ll will do exactly that.

The bill Senator Cornyn and I introduce today, like a bill that I introduced in the Senate in January, will provide investigators and prosecutors more time and resources to pursue public corruption cases. But it goes a step further by amending several key statutes to broaden their application in corruption contexts and to prevent corrupt public officials and their accomplices from evading or defeating prosecution based on existing legal ambiguities.

The bill will help improve the prosecution of public corruption offenses in three fundamental ways. First, the bill would give investigators and prosecutors more time and resources to uncover, charge, and prove three of the most serious and corrosive public corruption offenses. Specifically, it would extend the statute of limitations from 5 years to 6 years for prosecutions involving bribery, deprivation of honest services by a public official, and extortion by a public official. Public corruption cases are among the most difficult and time-consuming cases to investigate and prosecute. They often require the use of informants and electronic monitoring, as well as review of extensive financial and electronic records, techniques which take time to develop and implement. Bank fraud, arson and passport fraud, among other

offenses, all have 10-year statutes of limitations. Public corruption offenses cut to the heart of our democracy, and a more modest increase to the statute of limitations is a reasonable step to help our corruption investigators and prosecutors do their jobs.

The bill would also provide significant additional funding for public corruption enforcement. Since 9/11, FBI resources have been shifted away from the pursuit of public corruption cases to counterterrorism. FBI Director Mueller has recently indicated that public corruption is now a top criminal investigative priority; but a September 2005 report by Department of Justice Inspector General Fine found that, from 2000 to 2004, there was an overall reduction in public corruption matters handled by the FBI. This must be reversed; our bill will give Offices of Inspector General, the FBI, the U.S. Attorney's Offices, and the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice additional resources to hire additional public corruption investigators and prosecutors. These offices will finally be able to have the manpower they need to track down and prosecute these difficult but crucially important cases.

Second, the bill contains a series of legislative fixes designed to improve the clarity and enhance the effectiveness of existing Federal corruption statutes, such as the law criminalizing the acceptance of bribes and gratuities, and the law that govern mail and wire fraud. The bribery-gratuities fix resolves ambiguity in the law by making clear that public officials may not accept anything of value, other than what is permitted by existing regulations, that is given to them because of their official position. Similarly, the bill appropriately expands the definition of what it means for a public official to perform an ``official act'' for the purposes of the bribery statute to include any actions that fall within the duties of that official's public office. The bill also adds two corruption-related crimes as predicates for the Federal wiretap and the racketeering statutes, lowers the transactional amount required for Federal prosecution of bribery involving federally- funded state programs, and expands venue for perjury and obstruction of justice prosecutions.

Third, the bill raises the statutory maximum penalties for theft of Government property and Federal bribery to reflect the serious and corrosive nature of these crimes, and to harmonize these statutory maximums with others for which Congress has already raised penalties. Increasing penalties in appropriate cases sends a message to would-be criminals and to the public that there will be severe consequences for breaching the public trust.

If we are serious about addressing the kinds of egregious misconduct that we have recently witnessed in high-profile public corruption cases, Congress must enact meaningful legislation to give investigators and prosecutors the tools and resources they need to enforce our laws. Passing the ethics and lobbying reform bill is a step in the right direction. But we must finish the job by strengthening the criminal law to enable Federal investigators and prosecutors to bring those who undermine the public trust to justice. I strongly urge Congress to do more to restore the public's faith in their Government.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Cornyn to introduce the Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act of 2007, a bill that will strengthen and clarify key aspects of Federal criminal law and provide new tools to help investigators and prosecutors attack public corruption nationwide. This is the time to restore the faith of the American people in their Government. Congress took an important step in that direction today in passing long-awaited ethics and lobbying reforms that will tighten restrictions on those of us who hold public office, and those who seek to lobby us on behalf of private industry. But rooting out the kinds of rampant public corruption we have seen in recent years requires us to go further and to give prosecutors the tools they need to effectively investigate and prosecute criminal public corruption offenses.

The most serious corruption cannot be prevented only by changing our own rules. Bribery and extortion are committed by people bent on getting around the rules and banking that they will not get caught. These offenses are very difficult to detect and even harder to prove. Because they attack the core of our democracy, these offenses must be found out and punished. Congress must send a signal that it will not tolerate this corruption by providing better tools for Federal prosecutors to combat it. This b1ll will do exactly that.

The bill Senator Cornyn and I introduce today, like a bill that I introduced in the Senate in January, will provide investigators and prosecutors more time and resources to pursue public corruption cases. But it goes a step further by amending several key statutes to broaden their application in corruption contexts and to prevent corrupt public officials and their accomplices from evading or defeating prosecution based on existing legal ambiguities.

The bill will help improve the prosecution of public corruption offenses in three fundamental ways. First, the bill would give investigators and prosecutors more time and resources to uncover, charge, and prove three of the most serious and corrosive public corruption offenses. Specifically, it would extend the statute of limitations from 5 years to 6 years for prosecutions involving bribery, deprivation of honest services by a public official, and extortion by a public official. Public corruption cases are among the most difficult and time-consuming cases to investigate and prosecute. They often require the use of informants and electronic monitoring, as well as review of extensive financial and electronic records, techniques which take time to develop and implement. Bank fraud, arson and passport fraud, among other

offenses, all have 10-year statutes of limitations. Public corruption offenses cut to the heart of our democracy, and a more modest increase to the statute of limitations is a reasonable step to help our corruption investigators and prosecutors do their jobs.

The bill would also provide significant additional funding for public corruption enforcement. Since 9/11, FBI resources have been shifted away from the pursuit of public corruption cases to counterterrorism. FBI Director Mueller has recently indicated that public corruption is now a top criminal investigative priority; but a September 2005 report by Department of Justice Inspector General Fine found that, from 2000 to 2004, there was an overall reduction in public corruption matters handled by the FBI. This must be reversed; our bill will give Offices of Inspector General, the FBI, the U.S. Attorney's Offices, and the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice additional resources to hire additional public corruption investigators and prosecutors. These offices will finally be able to have the manpower they need to track down and prosecute these difficult but crucially important cases.

Second, the bill contains a series of legislative fixes designed to improve the clarity and enhance the effectiveness of existing Federal corruption statutes, such as the law criminalizing the acceptance of bribes and gratuities, and the law that govern mail and wire fraud. The bribery-gratuities fix resolves ambiguity in the law by making clear that public officials may not accept anything of value, other than what is permitted by existing regulations, that is given to them because of their official position. Similarly, the bill appropriately expands the definition of what it means for a public official to perform an ``official act'' for the purposes of the bribery statute to include any actions that fall within the duties of that official's public office. The bill also adds two corruption-related crimes as predicates for the Federal wiretap and the racketeering statutes, lowers the transactional amount required for Federal prosecution of bribery involving federally- funded state programs, and expands venue for perjury and obstruction of justice prosecutions.

Third, the bill raises the statutory maximum penalties for theft of Government property and Federal bribery to reflect the serious and corrosive nature of these crimes, and to harmonize these statutory maximums with others for which Congress has already raised penalties. Increasing penalties in appropriate cases sends a message to would-be criminals and to the public that there will be severe consequences for breaching the public trust.

If we are serious about addressing the kinds of egregious misconduct that we have recently witnessed in high-profile public corruption cases, Congress must enact meaningful legislation to give investigators and prosecutors the tools and resources they need to enforce our laws. Passing the ethics and lobbying reform bill is a step in the right direction. But we must finish the job by strengthening the criminal law to enable Federal investigators and prosecutors to bring those who undermine the public trust to justice. I strongly urge Congress to do more to restore the public's faith in their Government.

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

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the Republican leader yield for a moment?

I said, will the Senator from Kentucky yield for a question?

Mr. President, the distinguished majority leader wishes to be on the Senate floor, and I ask the Senator from Kentucky if he will yield for a brief quorum call so that the distinguished majority leader can be on the floor.

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

First, Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his usual courtesy and giving me some time to speak. I have had the privilege of serving almost 33 years--a third of a century--with the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. Of course, I know my 33 years pale in comparison with the time he has served.

While the distinguished Republican leader is on the floor, he and I have worked closely together on many things. I will not make comments about crocodile tears and all that, but it is interesting that he spoke of Judge Southwick being passed out unanimously last year. He forgot the fact that when he was being cleared for a vote by the Republican- controlled Senate, a Republican objected.

The Republican leader has forgotten that the Senate has confirmed 25 nominations for lifetime appointments this year--more than were confirmed, for example in all of 2005 with a Republican chairman and a Republican majority.

The leadership over there has forgotten that we Democrats--we Democrats--have confirmed more of President Bush's nominees for any given period of time while we have been in

charge than the Republicans did. We have had three different leaderships in the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate itself during the time President Bush has been in office. During the time that the Democrats have been in charge, we have actually confirmed more of President Bush's nominees than the Republicans did.

The weeping and gnashing of teeth going on makes me think that congressional Republicans love to shut down the Government and seem intent on manufacturing excuses to do so. In 1995 Newt Gingrich was so upset by the door he had to use on Air Force One--most people would be thrilled to fly on Air Force One--that he shut down the Government. When they were in the Senate majority a few years ago, Senate Republicans insisted on a 40-hour debate on their own President's court-packing scheme. And then we found out that during that time they were stealing our computer files. The then Republican leader had to fire one of his own aides for stealing computer files from the Democrats. So the weeping and gnashing of teeth that is going on leaves a little bit to be thought about.

The Senate has confirmed 20 circuit court nominations and 125 Federal judicial nominees during the 2 years I have been Judiciary Committee chairman. Compare that to the numbers of the Republicans. During the Bush presidency, more circuit judges, more district judges and more total judges have been confirmed, in less time, while I served as Judiciary Chairman than during the longer tenures of either of the two Republican Chairmen working with Republican Senate majorities. Yet you would think that somehow we are holding up everybody.

I would point out that it was the Republicans who pocket-filibustered over 60 of President Clinton's nominees. I think we have stopped two or three of President Bush's. Sixty-one. The distinguished Republican leader said he hoped all this would stop. Well, we are not going to do what they did. Incidentally, 17 of those were circuit nominees. Let me mention their names for those that have short memories: Barry Goode, Helene White, Alston Johnson, James Duffy, Elena Kagan, James Wynn, Kathleen McCree Lewis, Enrique Moreno, Allen Snyder, Kent Markus, Robert Cindrich, Bonnie Campbell, Stephen Orlofsky, Roger Gregory, Christine Arguello, Andre Davis, and Elizabeth Gibson. These are just some of the ones they pocket-filibustered.

Now, on Judge Southwick, I had him on the agenda. I took him off the agenda at the request of the Republicans. We actually had him on one time, and we did not get enough Republicans to show up to make a quorum to vote on him. I took Judge Southwick's nomination off the agenda at the request of Republican Senators. Neither the junior Senator from Mississippi nor the senior Senator from Mississippi nor the distinguished Republican leader has asked me to put him back on the agenda.

I am growing somewhat tired of the statements being made publicly about delay, many of which I do not attribute, of course, to my colleagues, so I put Judge Southwick's nomination back on the agenda for tomorrow.

I must say--and I will close with this--this makes me think about the first time I was chairman of this committee in the first Bush administration, knowing that we come from a time when the Republicans had pocket-filibustered 61 of President Clinton's nominees and one they had voted out almost unanimously from the committee whom they then ambushed on the floor, the distinguished James Graves, an African American who then became chief justice of the Missouri Supreme Court, the distinguished African American whom they humiliated by voting him out of committee, with no real objections, and then, in lockstep, with no notice, voted him down on the floor of the Senate. One of the most distinguished African-American jurists in the country, the Republican leadership decided to vote him down. But notwithstanding that, I tried to change that.

I remember when the Republicans asked me to have a hearing on a controversial nominee of theirs. They were very concerned about it. I actually came back from Vermont, which is not an easy thing to do in August, to leave that beautiful State--it is like leaving the beautiful State of West Virginia during the month of August, one of our prettiest times--but I left Vermont, came back, and held a hearing on that nominee so we could arrange in the first week of September to get him passed. Do you know what happened, Mr. President? Do you know what the reaction of the Republicans was? They trotted out a member of their leadership to tell the press how terrible it was that I held a hearing during August, even though that was the only way they were going to get their nominee through. That was hypocrisy.

Mr. President, with that, I will just point out again that there is no question of the numbers. The Democrats have moved more of President Bush's nominees more quickly than his own Republicans have when they have been in charge. If we are able to confirm just the five nominations for lifetime appointments to the federal bench currently on the Senate's executive calender, I will have presided over the most productive 2-year period for judicial confirmations in the last 20 years, with 130 confirmations. Let us stop the crocodile tears. Let us stop the hypocrisy. Let us stop the grandstanding and worry about what is best for the courts. This administration has played politics with the judiciary more than any of the six administrations I have served with--not for but with--and I think one example of their knowing what is best for law enforcement, what is best for the judiciary, is this administration's strong support of the current Attorney General.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, is the Senator aware of the fact that, formerly, when Judge Southwick was on the calendar as a nominee to be a district judge--Republicans were in charge--that when he was up for a vote, agreed to by the Democrats, he did not get a vote because of a Republican objection to a slate of judges? Is he aware of that?

To answer that question, he was voted out for a district court judgeship, an entirely different type of judgeship than a court of appeals judgeship. It was in a package to be confirmed, I guess by unanimous consent, with the Republicans in leadership, and a Republican Senator from Kansas objected to one of the nominees, and, of course, it brought down the package.

If I understood the Senator correctly, he was worried about political actions. Was he aware--I know he was not able to make a couple recent markups of the Senate Judiciary Committee, although he is a member. Is he aware of the fact that Mr. Southwick is on the agenda for tomorrow's markup?

Was he aware of the fact that he was taken off the agenda earlier at the request of the Republicans?

Mr. President, if the Senator would yield on that point, when the Republicans were in charge of the responsibility of bringing forth his record, they never brought forth either the sexual or the racial issues that have been raised when he was up for district court judge. But we will discuss this tomorrow. I hope the Senator will be able to join us at the markup tomorrow. We have had a couple of occasions when the President's nominees for judges have been on our agenda and Republicans did not show up to make a quorum. I don't know if this helps to keep their numbers--I remind the Senator, however, that with the Democrats in charge, the time the Democrats have been in charge, President Bush's judges have been confirmed at a far more rapid pace and in greater numbers--in greater numbers--than they have been under a Republican-controlled committee or Senate.

Mr. President, today the Senate Judiciary Committee is issuing subpoenas to political operatives at the White House for documents and testimony related to the committee's ongoing investigation into the mass firings of U.S. attorneys and the politicization of hiring and firing within the Department of Justice. This is not a step I take lightly. For over 4 months I have exhausted every avenue seeking the voluntary cooperation of Karl Rove and J. Scott Jennings but to no avail. They and the White House have stonewalled every request. Indeed, the White House is choosing to withhold documents and is instructing witnesses who are former officials--not current officials but former officials--to refuse to answer questions and provide relevant information and documents.

We have now reached a point where accumulated evidence shows that political considerations factored into the unprecedented firing of at least nine U.S. attorneys last year. Testimony and documents show that the list was compiled based on input from the highest political ranks in the White House, including Mr. Rove and Mr. Jennings. And today I will subpoena Mr. Rove and Mr. Jennings. The evidence shows that senior officials were apparently focused on the political impact of Federal prosecutions and whether Federal prosecutors were doing enough to bring partisan voter fraud and corruption cases. It is obvious that the reasons given for these firings were contrived as part of a coverup and that the stonewalling by the White House is part and parcel of that same effort. Just this week, during his sworn testimony, Mr. Gonzales contrasted these firings with the replacement of other U.S. attorneys for ``legitimate cause.''

The White House has asserted blanket claims of executive privilege, despite testimony under oath and on the record that the President was not involved. The White House refuses to provide a factual basis for its blanket claims. The White House has instructed former White House officials not to testify about what they know and instructed Harriet Miers to refuse even to appear as required by a House Judiciary Committee subpoena. The White House has withheld relevant documents and instructed other witnesses not to produce relevant documents to the Congress but only to the White House.

Last week, the White House did much to substantiate the evidence that it is intent on reducing U.S. attorneys and Federal law enforcement to merely another partisan political aspect of its efforts when it dispatched an anonymous senior official to take the position that the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia would not be permitted to follow the statutory mechanism to test White House assertions of executive privilege by prosecuting contempt of Congress. In essence, this White House asserts its claim of privilege is the final word, that Congress may not review it, that no court can review it and that this White House, unlike any White House in history, is above the law.

Two days ago, during an oversight hearing with Mr. Gonzales, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, rightly asked:

Mr. Attorney General, do you think constitutional

government in the United States can survive if the President

has unilateral authority to reject congressional inquiries on

grounds of executive privilege and the President then acts to

bar the Congress from getting a judicial determination as to

whether that executive privilege is properly invoked?

There can be no more conclusive demonstration of this administration's partisan intervention in Federal law enforcement than if this administration were to instruct the Justice Department not to pursue congressional contempt citations and intervene to prevent a U.S. attorney from fulfilling his sworn constitutional duty. In other words, telling the U.S. attorney: Violate your oath of office; don't carry out your sworn constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws and proceed pursuant to section 194 of title 2 of the United States Code. The President recently abused the pardon power to forestall Scooter Libby from ever serving a

single day of his 30-month sentence for conviction before a jury on multiple counts of perjury, lying to a grand jury, and obstruction of justice. Stonewalling this congressional investigation is further demonstration that this administration refuses to abide by the rule of law.

This stonewalling is a dramatic break from the practices of every administration since World War II in responding to congressional oversight. In that time, Presidential advisers have testified before congressional committees 74 times voluntarily or compelled by subpoenas. During the Clinton administration, White House and administration advisers were routinely subpoenaed for documents or to appear before Congress. For example, in 1996 alone, the House Government Reform Committee issued at least 27 subpoenas to White House advisers. The veil of secrecy this administration has pulled over the White House is unprecedented and damaging to the tradition of open government by and for the people that has been a hallmark of the Republic.

The investigation into the firing for partisan purposes of U.S. attorneys, who had been appointed by this President, along with an ever-growing series of controversies and scandals have revealed an administration driven by a vision of an all-powerful Executive over our constitutional system of checks and balances, one that values loyalty over judgment, secrecy over openness, and ideology over competence.

What the White House stonewalling is preventing is conclusive evidence of who made the decisions to fire these Federal prosecutors. We know from the testimony that it was not the President. Everyone who has testified has said that he was not involved. None of the senior officials at the Department of Justice could testify how people were added to the list or the real reasons that people were included among the Federal prosecutors to be replaced. Indeed, the evidence we have been able to collect points to Karl Rove and the political operatives at the White House.

A former political director at the White House made a revealing admission in her recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee when she refused to answer questions citing the oath she took to the President. In this constitutional democracy, the oath taken by public officials is to the Constitution, not any particular President of any particular party. The Constitution itself provides the oath of office of the President. Every President since George Washington has shown to ``preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' The oath for other Federal official is prescribed by Congress through statute and provides that every Federal officer's duty is not to support and defend any particular President or administration but ``to support and defend the Constitution of the United States'' and ``to bear true faith and allegiance'' to our founding principles and law.

I will. The witness testified that she had taken an oath to the President. I reminded her the oath is to the Constitution, not to any particular President.

The distinguished Senator from West Virginia, the constitutional authority in this body, knows that every President since George Washington has sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

`` . . . to support and defend the Constitution of the United States'' and ``to bear truth fair and allegiance'' to our founding principles and law, not to a particular political party or to a President.

I pointed out to Ms. Taylor that the oath I have been privileged to take as a U.S. Senator is likewise to the Constitution. I proudly represent the people of Vermont. I know it is a privilege to serve as a temporary steward of the Constitution and the values and protections for the rights and liberties of the American people that it embodies. My oath is not to a political party and not even to the great institution of the U.S. Senate but to the Constitution and the rule of law. As a former prosecutor, I feel strongly that independent law enforcement is an essential component of our democratic government, and that no one is above the law.

Despite the constitutional duty of all members of the executive branch to ``take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,'' the message from this White House is that the President, Vice President, and their loyal aides are above the law. No check. No balance. No accountability.

The law says otherwise. The criminal contempt statute, 2 U.S.C. Sec. 194, provides that if a House of Congress certifies a contempt citation, the U.S. attorney to whom it is sent has a ``duty'' and ``shall'' ``bring it before the grand jury for its action.'' For this White House to threaten to intervene in an effort to preempt further investigation, cover up the truth and avoid accountability is an insult to the rule of law. This law was duly passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by a duly elected President of the United States. It is derived from law that has been on the books since 1857, for 150 years.

The Bush-Cheney White House continues to place great strains on our constitutional system of checks and balances. Not since the darkest days of the Nixon administration have we seen efforts to corrupt federal law enforcement for partisan political gain and such efforts to avoid accountability.

Given the stonewalling by this White House, the American people are left to wonder: What is it that the White House is so desperate to hide? As more and more stories leak out about the involvement of Karl Rove and his political team in political briefings of what should be nonpartisan government offices, I think we have a better sense of what they are trying to hide. We have learned of political briefings at over 20 government agencies, including briefings attended by Justice Department officials. This week, the news was that Mr. Rove briefed diplomats on vulnerable Democratic districts before mid-term elections. Why, Senator Whitehouse properly asked at our hearing yesterday, were members of our foreign service being briefed on domestic political contests? Mr. Gonzales had no answer. Similarly, why were political operatives giving such briefings to the Government Services Administration, which rents government property and buys supplies? In her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the former political director at the White House ultimately had to concede that her briefings included specific political races and particular candidates being targeted.

In this context, is anyone surprised that the evidence in our investigation of the firings of U.S. attorneys for political purposes points to Mr. Rove and his political operations in the White House? Despite the initial White House denials, Mr. Rove's involvement in these firings is indicated by the Department of Justice documents we have obtained and from the testimony of high-ranking Department officials. This evidence shows that he was involved from the beginning in plans to remove U.S. attorneys. E-mails show that Mr. Rove initiated inquiries at least by the beginning of 2005 as to how to proceed regarding the dismissal and replacement of U.S. attorneys. The evidence also shows that he raised political concerns, including those of New Mexico Republican leaders, about New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias that may have led to his dismissal. He was fired a few weeks after Mr. Rove complained to the Attorney General about the lack of purported ``voter fraud'' enforcement cases in his jurisdiction.

We have learned that Mr. Rove raised similar concerns with the Attorney General about prosecutors not aggressively pursuing voter fraud cases in several districts and that prior to the 2006 mid-term election he sent the Attorney General's chief of staff a packet of information containing a 30-page report concerning voting in Wisconsin in 2004. This evidence points to his role and the role of those in his office in removing or trying to remove prosecutors not considered sufficiently loyal to Republican electoral prospects. Such manipulation shows corruption of Federal law enforcement for partisan political purposes.

Documents and testimony also show that Mr. Rove had a role in the shaping the administration's response to congressional inquiries into these dismissals, which led to inaccurate and misleading testimony to Congress and statements to the public. This response included an attempt to cover up the role that he and other White House officials played in the firings.

Despite the stonewalling and obstruction, we have learned that Todd Graves, U.S. attorney in the Western District of Missouri, was fired after he expressed reservations about a lawsuit that would have stripped many African-American voters from the rolls in Missouri. When the Attorney General replaced Mr. Graves with Bradley Schlozman, the person pushing the lawsuit, that case was filed and ultimately thrown out of court. Once in place in Missouri though, Mr. Schlozman also brought indictments on the eve of a closely contested election, despite the Justice Department policy not to do so. This is what happens when a responsible prosecutor is replaced by a ``loyal Bushie'' for partisan, political purposes.

Mr. Schlozman also bragged about hiring ideological soulmates. Monica Goodling likewise admitted ``crossing the line'' when she used a political litmus test for career prosecutors and immigration judges. Rather than keep Federal law enforcement above politics, this administration is more intent on placing its actions above the law.

The Senator from Washington has been very good to let me have this time. With our service of these subpoenas, I hope that the White House takes this opportunity to reconsider its blanket claim of executive privilege, especially in light of the testimony that President was not involved in the dismissals of these U.S. attorneys. I hope that the White House steps back from this constitutional crisis of its own making so that we can begin to repair the damage done by its untoward interference with federal law enforcement. That interference has threatened our elections and seriously undercut the American people's confidence in the independence and evenhandedness of law enforcement. Mr. Rove and the White House must not be allowed to continue manipulating our justice system to pursue a partisan political agenda. Apparently, this White House would rather precipitate an unnecessary constitutional confrontation than do what every other administration has done and find an accommodation with the Congress. If there are any cooler or wiser heads at the White House, I urge them to reconsider the course they have chosen.

There is a cloud over this White House and a gathering storm. I hope they will reconsider their course and end their cover up so that we can move forward together to repair the damage done to the Department of Justice and the American people's trust and confidence in Federal law enforcement.

Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. President, the REAL ID Act was legislation forced through Congress as an add-on to the emergency supplemental bill passed in May 2005, without any Senate hearings

or debate, but the implications of the Act are enormous. In addition to numerous privacy and civil liberties concerns, REAL ID is an unfunded mandate that could cost the States in excess of $23 billion.

As hearings in the Judiciary Committee and Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee have shown, REAL ID is far from being ready for primetime. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security has not even released final regulations directing the States on REAL ID implementation. With 260 million drivers in this country, I do not see how we could have the massive national databases required by REAL ID up and running in the next 5 years--much less in fiscal year 2008.

On top of that, even though they are not even in production yet, REAL ID cards are rapidly becoming a de facto national ID card since they will be needed to enter courthouses, airports, Federal buildings, and now workplaces all across the country. In my opinion, REAL ID raises multiple constitutional issues whose legal challenges could delay final implementation for years, and we should not support the Alexander- Collins amendment.

In May, the Department of Homeland Security Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee expressed concern over several items in the REAL ID proposed regulations and said that they pose serious risks to individual privacy by: failing to establish a standard for protecting the storage of personally identifiable information; failing to provide methods for Americans to inquire or complain about the collection, storage, and use of personal information and remedy errors; failing to require notifying consumers of information collection and use by the State; failing to require that individuals have a choice over secondary use of that information; and failing to assure that the information collected for a specific purpose is used only for that purpose.

Congress should not fund the REAL ID program until the Department of Homeland Security makes fundamental reforms to the program and stops forcing such onerous provisions on the States. In addition, with this amendment offset by an across-the-board cut from all DHS programs, I don't think we should be robbing from other critical Homeland Security accounts--where we have seen real gains in securing our country--to pay for just 1 percent of the floundering REAL ID program.

REAL ID is not popular in our States, and opposition spans the political spectrum, from the right to the left. A large number of States have expressed concerns with the mandates of the REAL ID Act by enacting bills and resolutions in opposition.

Seventeen States have enacted statutes or resolutions against REAL ID, including Hawaii, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Montana, North Dakota, Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois, New Hampshire, Maine, Arkansas, Tennessee, Georgia, and South Carolina.

Washington, Georgia, Oklahoma, Montana, South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Maine have gone so far as to indicate that they intend to refuse to comply with REAL ID.

Ten States have had statutes or resolutions pass one chamber of their legislature, including Oregon, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, Minnesota, Louisiana, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Vermont.

Another 10 States have had statutes or resolutions introduced in their legislatures, including Alaska, Texas, Wisconsin, Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Maryland.

The reaction to the numerous privacy concerns and unfunded mandates of the REAL ID Act is a good example of what happens when the Federal Government imposes itself rather than working with the States to build cooperation and partnership. Since so many States have risen up in opposition to REAL ID, we should not fund this failed program, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. President, the people of Colombia have endured decades of civil conflict characterized by widespread killings and disappearances of civilians perpetrated by rebel groups and paramilitary death squads, sometimes with the active participation of government security forces. In recent

years, both rebels and paramilitaries have financed their illegal activities through the sale of cocaine, which has also corrupted government institutions.

Each year since the inception of Plan Colombia, the United States has provided Colombia with more than half a billion dollars in mostly military and counter-drug assistance, totaling more than $5 billion.

The primary goal of Plan Colombia, at least as sold to the Congress, was to decrease by half the amount of coca produced, resulting in commensurate reductions in the income derived from cocaine to the rebels and paramilitaries and the amount of cocaine entering the United States.

While there is no reliable evidence that Plan Colombia has affected either the price or availability of cocaine in the United States, the Office of National Drug Control Policy reports that profits from illegal drugs to the FARC rebels declined by about one-third between 2003 and 2005. This is welcome news. But whether this trend has continued since then or has ebbed and flowed like most other statistics relating to drug cultivation and trafficking in Colombia, is unknown. Unfortunately, it is also not yet apparent that this reported reduction in profits has affected the FARC's ability to operate.

While the majority of killings of civilians during the 7 years of Plan Colombia are attributed to paramilitaries, sometimes with the active or tacit support of government forces, the FARC has engaged in many atrocities, including attacks against civilian targets and kidnapping. But perhaps the most insidious of their crimes is the widespread use of landmines.

According to a report released yesterday by Human Rights Watch, casualties from landmines used by the FARC, as well as by another rebel group known as the ELN, have risen steadily in recent years. As is so often the case with landmines which are triggered indiscriminately by the victim, most of the casualties in Colombia have been civilians.

While the number of casualties did not exceed 148 a year in the 1990s, Human Rights Watch reports that last year the number was 1,107. This increase contrasts sharply with the worldwide decline in the use of these insidious weapons. In fact, Colombia is among the more than 150 nations that have signed or ratified the international treaty banning antipersonnel mines.

According to press reports, the FARC defends its use of mines by claiming that they are used only against government security forces, not civilians. That, however, is a specious claim, since mines are inherently indiscriminate. They will kill or maim whoever comes into contact with them, often months or years after they are laid. I have seen photographs of the horrific injuries suffered by both government soldiers and innocent civilians from rebel mines.

While the FARC, like others who continue to use landmines, would undoubtedly claim that their military utility justifies their continued use, I reject that argument. The harm to civilians and the contamination of the countryside caused by mines cannot be justified.

While there are programs to assist Colombia's mine victims with rehabilitation and vocational training, they are far from adequate. I have supported efforts to increase U.S. assistance. We are looking at ways to use the Leahy War Victims Fund to assist Colombian civilians who have been injured by mines, and we are supporting United for Colombia's efforts to obtain surgery in the U.S. for Colombian soldiers who have suffered grievous mine injuries.

I have been a consistent critic of human rights violations in Colombia where impunity remains a persistent problem. There have been thousands of killings of civilians, including of human rights defenders, union members, journalists, and others who have been targeted by one armed group or another. Hardly any of these crimes have resulted in convictions and punishment. But none of that excuses the continued use of landmines by the FARC and ELN. As I have said many times before, the use of landmines should be a war crime. It is barbaric; it is inhumane; it is indefensible.

Mr. President, last week, I spoke in this Chamber about the current debate underway in Guatemala concerning the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala, CICIG. In my brief remarks I recalled the 30 years of civil war that caused widespread atrocities against civilians, particularly Guatemala's Mayan population. A substantial majority of those killings and disappearances were perpetrated by Guatemalan security forces.

Since the signing of the Peace Accords in 1996, most Guatemalans have tried to put the past behind them and rebuild their country. The United States and other donors have supported that effort.

But key aspects of the Peace Accords remain unfulfilled, and there has been no justice for the families of the war's many victims. Meanwhile, gang violence, drug trafficking, brutal killings of women, and attacks against human rights defenders and others who speak out against corruption and impunity have increased exponentially and threaten the very foundations of Guatemala's fragile democracy.

In recent years, the Guatemalan Government has worked with officials of the United Nations to draft the CICIG agreement, the latest version of which has been upheld by Guatemala's constitutional court.

The CICIG is necessary to expose the truth about clandestine groups and to bring accountability for the violence. Far from weakening national sovereignty, CICIG will support Guatemala by helping to strengthen the capacity of the country's dysfunctional judicial system.

On July 18, a majority of members of the International Relations Committee of the Guatemalan Congress, for reasons that only they can explain, voted against the CICIG agreement. Since then, several have changed their votes and I understand that on August 1 the full Congress will approve or reject the CICIG agreement or refer it to another committee.

The question of whether to approve CICIG is, of course, a decision solely for Guatemala's Congress to make. But the importance of this historic decision cannot be overstated for U.S.-Guatemalan relations and for Guatemala's future.

Guatemala, like many impoverished countries emerging from years of civil conflict, faces immense social, economic and political challenges. Without the support of countries like the United States in building its economy, promoting foreign investment and trade, and strengthening the institutions of democracy, Guatemala will lag behind its neighbors.

Today, that support hangs in the balance.

The Bush administration has voiced strong support for CICIG. The U.S. Congress has linked a resumption of U.S. assistance for the Guatemalan Armed Forces, in part, on approval of CICIG. In addition, I would be reluctant to support assistance for Guatemala to take part in any regional security initiative with the United States, unless CICIG is approved and supported. There is little point in trying to work with a government that fails to demonstrate a strong commitment to ending impunity and to combating gang violence and corruption, which have infiltrated the very institutions that would participate in such a strategy.

CICIG is nothing less than a choice between the past and the future. Rejecting this historic initiative an outcome most Americans would find inexplicable would signal that the Guatemalan Congress is more interested in protecting the forces of evil, and in covering up the truth, than in ending the lawlessness that is taking Guatemala backwards.

Mr. President, at a time when we are focused on the chaos in Iraq and the flood of Iraqis who have fled their homes and are living either as displaced persons in Iraq or as refugees in Jordan, Syria and elsewhere, I want to call attention to a humanitarian crisis in our own hemisphere.

In Colombia, a country of roughly 44 million people, over 3 million have

been internally displaced as a result of political and drug-related violence and the aerial spraying of chemical herbicides to eradicate coca. They are the second largest displaced population in the world after Darfur, Sudan. An average of 18,000 Colombians are uprooted every month, with more than 1 million forced to flee in the past 5 years alone, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

To put that in perspective, if the same ratio were applied to the United States, a country of roughly 300 million people, there would be over 20 million internally displaced Americans. That is a staggering number when you consider the burden they would place on public services and the environment. Colombia by comparison is a relatively poor country, and many of these people, the majority of whom are women and children, lack access to basic health care, sanitation, education, adequate shelter, or employment.

It is my understanding that Colombia has suitable laws for addressing the needs of the internally displaced, but the laws are too often ignored or poorly implemented. Insecurity and inadequate public services in isolated areas, where many of the displaced are located, hinder return to their homes and contribute to further displacement.

Recently, the House of Representatives passed a resolution calling on the Colombian Government and the international community to prioritize the needs of displaced persons, and recommending that the United States increase funding for emergency and long-term assistance.

The Senate version of the fiscal year 2008 State-Foreign Operations bill provides $40 million for assistance for displaced persons in Colombia. This is a $5 million increase above the President's budget request, which was woefully inadequate. As the White House urges Congress to continue funding aerial eradication programs which, despite billions of dollars, have failed to make an appreciable dent in the amount of coca under cultivation, one would like to think that at some point they will exhibit the same zeal for meeting the basic needs of Colombia's most vulnerable people.

Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to recognize the career of a real-life hero who stands tall as one of the bravest and most dedicated public servants we have in Vermont if not anywhere-- Police Chief David Demag of the town of Essex Police Department. After 36 years in law enforcement, Dave will hang up his uniform early next month and enter a well-earned retirement.

Dave comes from a family dedicated to police service--he is the fourth generation in his family to serve as a police officer. In fact, his great-grandfather and namesake, Chief David Demag, was the first chief of police of the Village of Essex in the early 1900s. It seems to me that it is only fitting that Dave will finish his law enforcement career in Essex, where his roots grow deep.

I am proud to be able to call Dave not only an accomplished Vermonter but also a good friend. We have known each other for years, having both started our careers in law enforcement in the city of Burlington. Dave began in 1971 as a patrol officer for the Burlington Police Department, and was promoted through the ranks as corporal, detective, sergeant, lieutenant and, finally, commander. In 1996, he was appointed chief of police in St. Albans, a post he held until May 2001, when he was named to Chief of Police in Essex.

When he began his law enforcement career in the early 1970s, Dave worked undercover on drug cases. One of the cases we worked together on--he as an undercover agent and me as the State's attorney for Chittenden County--set up a successful sting to catch Paul Lawrence, a corrupt cop who framed dozens of narcotics suspects. The Lawrence case remains the first item Dave cites as the most memorable moments of his professional life.

Known for his ability to earn and command respect from his employees and the public he serves, Chief Demag has led the Essex Police Department with a steady hand and a calm presence. He is credited with revitalizing the Essex Police Department and changing the way it trains and promotes officers. As chief, he has emphasized continuing education for members of the force and required promotions to be based on ability rather than length of service.

Dave's leadership was especially apparent last August when a gunman went on a shooting spree at three sites across Essex, including an elementary school, leaving two dead and three wounded, including the gunman himself. Taking swift and deliberate action, Dave and his officers ushered dozens of teachers and several children away from the chaos at Essex Elementary School and to safety as tactical-response officers wearing body armor and carrying automatic weapons moved in and surrounded the building.

As a U.S. Senator, I have been privileged to work with Chief Demag and have his vocal support on an array of initiatives--from bulletproof vests to first responder funding--that have helped make the lives and work of Vermont's and our Nation's police officers a bit easier. But what stands out most in my mind is his unwavering support for the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act, which became law in 2003 and expanded the Public Safety Officer Benefits, PSOB, Program by allowing survivors of public safety officers who suffer fatal heart attacks or strokes while acting in the line of duty to qualify for the Federal survivor benefits. Dave understood how important it was for that bill to become law because his father, special Deputy Sheriff Bernard Demag of the Chittenden County Sheriff's Office, suffered a fatal heart attack within 2 hours of his chase and apprehension of an escaped juvenile whom he had been transporting. The Demag family spent nearly two decades fighting in court for workers' compensation death benefits to no avail. What Dave and his family went through left no doubt in my mind that we should be treating the surviving families of officers who die in the line of duty with more decency and respect. Although Dave knew that his family would not receive survivor benefits under the PSOB law, he did not want other survivors of public safety officers to endure what his family suffered. It was a great day when I told Dave that the Hometown Heroes Act had finally been signed into law.

In 2001, Chief Demag was appointed on my recommendation to serve on the 11-member U.S. Medal of Valor Review Board, which selects and recommends to the President public safety officers to receive the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor. The Medal of Valor is the highest national award for valor by a public safety officer and is designed to recognize the extraordinary heroism of our police, firefighters and correctional officers. As a board member, Dave has worked faithfully to award the medal to his public safety officers who demonstrate extraordinary valor above and beyond the call of duty.

I wish Dave and his wife Donna nothing but the best as they head into the next phase of their life together. I will say, however, that whoever Essex appoints as its next police chief will have the biggest of shoes to fill, as Dave Demag is the best kind of leader a community can hope for and he will be missed. Thank you, Dave, and congratulations for your service and commitment to the people of Essex and all Vermonters.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, this amendment is not germane. It is subject to the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. I would be happy to hold hearings on it. This is so overbroad that you could have all kinds of problems. It could invite racial and religious profiling. Suppose somebody is wearing religious garb and it frightens somebody. They could immediately--or maybe it doesn't frighten them, but they could say it does. It broadly protects Government officials from potential misconduct. It sets a new standard for a government official responding to reports of activity, and it is basically a court- stripping bill.

If this is for more than a political point on this bill, fine, bring it to the Judiciary Committee. We will hold a hearing on it before the committee that has jurisdiction.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, anybody who sees something that looks different: Hispanic, Black, someone wearing religious garb, they have a reasonable ground to turn them in under this. This is far too broad. Let it go to the Judiciary Committee--I guarantee we will have a hearing--but not on this.

I make the motion that the pending amendment is not germane. I raise a point of order pursuant to section 305(b)2 and 310(e)1 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Madam President, I wish to express my support for the Higher Education Access Act of 2007. I applaud Chairman Kennedy and Ranking Member Enzi for their work on crafting this bill that will widen access to higher education by providing for increased funding assistance available to American students for their higher education studies.

The need for these improvements by now should be as clear to the Senate as it is to America's families. In recent years average college tuition rates have been rising faster than inflation and outpacing student financial aid. Skyrocketing tuitions are pricing our families out of their ability to afford higher education. This trend not only closes doors to opportunity in the lives of the Nation's young people; it also poses harsh consequences on our country and our communities, in ways that are evident across our economy. I am pleased that, in this new Congress, this bill has been brought forward to reverse the direction of recent budgets that have continued to erode the Federal Government's support of higher education with deep cuts in the funding support for colleges and universities.

The Federal Government must rise to the challenge and improve our financial aid programs to ensure that college is an affordable option for all qualified students. No student should be thwarted from enrolling and graduating from college because of financial concerns. This bill accomplishes this goal through need-based grant aid to students by raising the maximum Pell grant to $5,100 next year, and up to $5,400 by 2011.

Because tuition has increased well beyond the rate of student assistance, students today are graduating with staggering debt burdens. With the weight of this debt on their backs, recent college graduates understandably gravitate toward higher paying jobs that allow them to pay back their loans. Unfortunately, all too often these jobs are not in the arena of public service or areas that serve the vital public interests of our communities and of our country. We need to be doing more to support graduates who want to enter public service, be it as a child care provider, a doctor or nurse in the public health field, or a police officer or other type of first responder.

I appreciate that the chairman has included strong provisions in this bill that will forgive the debt of borrowers who continue in public service careers

such as nursing, teaching, or law enforcement for 10 years. Under this bill, a starting teacher in Vermont earning less than $30,000, and with debt of $20,000, could have his or her loan payments capped at 15 percent, reducing monthly payments by almost 40 percent.

The increases for student aid in this bill are paid for by reducing the subsidies the government provides to lenders. I believe that increasing student assistance should be our highest priority in this bill and that this offset is a worthy and sensible exchange. However, while this bill reduces the subsidies for lenders, I am pleased that it recognizes the importance of not-for-profit lenders, by differentiating between the size of cuts intended for for-profit and for nonprofit lenders. Several States have established not-for-profit State agencies to administer financial aid and to provide their residents and students attending their schools with quality counseling services and low-cost loans. Vermont pioneered this movement by creating the Vermont Student Assistance Corporation more than 40 years ago.

I do have concerns with the auction proposal contained within this bill. I am worried that it could potentially prevent Vermonters from exercising their right to choose where to borrow money by requiring the Secretary of Education to conduct an auction to select two lenders that will be permitted to make parent loans. Bids will be sealed, invisible to the public and to Congress, and awards will be made solely on the Secretary's determination of who offers the lowest cost to the government.

We do not want to crowd out the not-for-profit agencies from providing PLUS loans to families in their State. I am hopeful that the chairman and ranking member will be willing to work on this portion of the bill in order to continue to recognize the important role of not- for-profit lenders.

I am pleased to introduce the Protect Our Children First Act of 2007, which will reauthorize funding for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMEC through fiscal year 2013, and increase Federal support and coordination to help NCMEC programs to find missing children across the Nation. I am glad that Senator Hatch has joined me in introducing this bill, along with Senators Lincoln and Shelby. As members of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, we have all worked together on numerous pieces of legislation to protect the safety and welfare of our children, and I thank them for their continued leadership and for joining me in introducing this bill.

Just a few months ago, we commemorated the 25th National Missing Children's Day, when our Nation particularly remembers our commitment to work together in locating and recovering missing children. It pains us all to see on TV, in the newspapers or on milk cartons photo after photo of missing children from various comers of our country. As a father and grandfather, I know that an abducted child is the worst nightmare. Unfortunately, it is a nightmare that happens all too often. Indeed, the Justice Department estimates that 2,200 children are reported missing each day. There are approximately 114,600 attempted stranger abductions every year, with 3,000 to 5,000 of those attempts succeeding. Experts estimate that children and youth comprise between 85 percent and 90 percent of missing person reports. These families deserve the assistance of the American people and a helping hand from the Congress and from Federal agencies.

As the Nation's top resource center for child protection, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children spearheads national efforts to locate and recover missing children and raises public awareness about ways to prevent child abduction, molestation and sexual exploitation. NCMEC works to make our children safer by being a national voice and advocate for those too young to vote or speak up for their own rights. The center operates under a Congressional mandate and works in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to coordinate the efforts of law enforcement officers, social service agencies, elected officials, judges, prosecutors, educators, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the public and private sectors to break the cycle of violence that historically has perpetuated these needless crimes against children. Child advocates like John Walsh, who worked hard in helping Congress enact the National Center's charter, also continue to support the center's vital work.

The center's professionals have disturbingly busy jobs, they have worked on more than 127,700 cases of missing and exploited children since its 1984 founding, helping to recover more than 110,200 children. The center raised its recovery rate from 64 percent in the 1990s to 96 percent today. The center has set up a nationwide, toll free, 24-hour telephone hotline to take reports about missing children and clues that might lead to their recovery, a National Child Pornography Tipline to handle calls from individuals reporting the sexual exploitation of children through the production and distribution of pornography, and a CyberTipline to process online leads from individuals reporting the sexual exploitation of children. It has taken the lead in circulating millions of photographs of missing children, and it serves as a vital resource for the 17,000 law enforcement agencies located throughout the Nation in the search for missing children and in the pursuit of adequate child protection.

The center has also developed a ``Cold Case Unit'' within the Missing Children Division that focuses on long-term missing children cases. By using age progression technology, NCMEC has recovered 741 missing children. NCMEC forensic artists have also identified 24 missing children by using facial reconstructions of unidentified remains.

In order to help the center solve these long-term cases, Section 5 of this bill would allow an Inspector General to provide staff support to NCMEC for the purpose of conducting reviews of inactive case files to develop recommendations for further investigation. The Inspector General community has one of the most diverse and talented criminal investigative cadres in the Federal Government. A vast majority of these special agents have come from traditional law enforcement agencies, and they are highly trained and extremely capable of dealing with complex criminal cases.

Under current law, an Inspector General's duties are limited to activities related to the programs and operations of an agency. Our bill would allow an Inspector General to permit criminal investigators under his or her supervision to review cold case files, so long as doing so would not interfere with normal duties. An Inspector General would not conduct actual investigations, and any Inspector General would only commit staff when the office's mission-related workloads permitted. At no time would these activities be allowed to conflict with or delay the stated missions of an Inspector General.

The Protect Our Children First Act also gives the Center better tools for working in coordination with Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to find missing children. This bill would provide analytical and technical support to assist law enforcement agencies in searching public databases to identify missing children and to locate abductors and would facilitate the deployment of the National Emergency Child Locator Center to assist in locating children in times of national disasters. In addition, the bill would allow

NCMEC to work in conjunction with the FBI to provide fitness determinations based on criminal history of volunteers in child-serving organizations and track the incidence of attempted child abductions to report any links or patterns to law enforcement agencies.

NCMEC is headquartered in Alexandria, VA, and operates branch offices in five other locations throughout the country to provide hands-on assistance to families of missing children, advocating legislative changes to better protect children, conducting an array of prevention and awareness programs, and motivating individuals to become personally involved in child-protection issues. It has also grown into an international organization, establishing the International Division of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which has been working to fulfill the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The international division provides assistance to parents, law enforcement, attorneys, nonprofit organizations, and other concerned individuals who are seeking assistance in preventing or resolving international child abductions.

NCMEC manages to do all of this good work with an annual DOJ grant, which expires after fiscal year 2008. We must act now to extend its authorization so that it can continue to help keep children safe and families intact around the Nation. There is so much more to be done to ensure the safety of our children, and the legislation we introduce today will help the center in its efforts to prevent crimes that are committed against them.

We have before us the type of bipartisan legislation that should be moved easily through the Senate and the House. The children we seek to protect through legislation like this should not be used as pawns by groups who would play politics by saddling such efforts with controversial measures. I applaud the ongoing work of the center and hope both the Senate and the House will promptly pass this bill to show our support for the NCMEC to continue to find our missing children and to protect exploited children across the country.

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

Will the Senator yield for a question without the Senator yielding his right to the floor?

I ask the distinguished majority leader if he has not had experiences similar to mine. I was in Vermont over the weekend, as I am most weekends. I get stopped by people in the grocery store or putting gas in the car--we are a small State, and you tend to know everybody; they are Republicans and they are Democrats--and I get asked the constant question, if the President will not listen to us about getting out, can you people in Congress vote on something? Can you vote? Can you either vote to keep us there or vote to get us out, but stand up? My answer to them is we are prepared to vote on our side of the aisle. Senator Reid and those following him are prepared to vote, but we are stopped from voting.

I am wondering whether the distinguished majority leader, when he goes home to Nevada, whether he doesn't hear similar sentiments about: Let us vote. Let us vote.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to proceed as in morning business for up to 6 minutes.

Mr. President, like all of the others, I was here throughout the night. I was happy to do that because I strongly supported the Levin-Reed amendment. But I had hoped that the filibuster would be ended on this vital piece of legislation.

I was 1 of 23 Senators who voted against going to war in Iraq. The distinguished Presiding Officer, my Senate partner from Vermont, voted a similar way in the other body.

Mr. President, the President's Iraq strategy has been a disaster. It was born of deception, fueled by incompetence, and pursued through arrogance and stubbornness.

This strategy has not made us safer. It has undermined the international credibility that took generations of Americans' sacrifice to build; it has squandered billions of hard-earned tax dollars that would have been better used in directly countering terrorists; it has skewed our priorities here at home; it has weakened our military readiness; and it has created an open sore in an already volatile Middle East.

It is time to extricate our troops from Iraq's civil war and let the Iraqis and their regional neighbors forge their own political settlement.

As many predicted, the security situation in Iraq has not appreciably improved despite the President's surge strategy.

The ongoing violence comes from a deadly brew of suicide bombings, intra-ethnic conflict, and out-of-control militias--all unleashed by the President's poorly planned invasion and occupation of the country.

Our troops can provide some semblance of security in limited areas for limited periods of time. But this fleeting security largely just shifts the focal points of violence, and it comes at the horrific price of the lives and limbs of still more of our soldiers and marines killed and maimed every day in roadside bomb attacks and ambushes.

The issue is not whether our troops can gain control of a few city blocks but whether there is any way that we can stop Iraq's civil war.

I challenge anyone to say how we can do that, when the Iraqis do not yet have the political will to do it themselves.

The Iraqi Army is fraught with ethnic divisions and few Iraqi units are capable of fighting successfully on their own.

As others have pointed out, it often appears the Shiite-dominated Iraqi Army is simply out to settle scores with the Sunnis who ruled Iraq under Saddam Hussein. The unfortunate truth is that the Iraqi Army cannot bring security now, and it is unlikely to be able to in the coming years without overwhelming, side-by-side support and sacrifice of American soldiers.

That leaves political reconciliation, and we all know where that stands. The Iraqis are no closer to an oil revenue-sharing agreement, no closer to an acceptable political arrangement, and no closer to a functioning government that serves all Iraqis. Our presence has become an excuse for inaction. Why should Shiites sacrifice when they have American forces to die for them?

Why should the Kurds be more conciliatory when they think we will protect them forever? Why should the Sunnis reconcile among themselves when they can fight Americans together?

Rory Stewart, an insightful author and observer of the Middle East, recently commented that our presence in Iraq--is to use his phrase-- ``infantilizing Iraqi politics,'' making the Iraqis completely incapable of finding their own way.

As our troops are withdrawing, we should make a concerted diplomatic push, bringing together representatives of Iraq's Government and Iraq's neighbors.

They would have little choice but to recognize that without the U.S. military's constant presence, they have to make some kind of accommodation among themselves.

That is what the Levin-Reed and the Feingold-Reid-Leahy amendments would accomplish.

Based closely on the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, both amendments would require the withdrawal of U.S. forces in Iraq to commence within 120 days.

By springtime of next year, only a small number of troops necessary for limited counter terrorism, force protection, and training purposes would remain in the country.

These amendments would effectively end the U.S. military presence in Iraq as we know it.

The White House wants to wait to until September, when General Petraeus will report on progress from the surge. Yet it is folly to wait when we already know what the answer will be.

We are going to hear words like: The situation is still challenging, but we are making progress. We are going to get a report like the glossy one released last week, which said the Iraqis are making progress in some areas, as if that is enough reason to continue further still down the wrong road.

We can already see the way the review is predetermined in statements of General Petraeus's deputies.

General Odierno told reporters a couple of months ago that the current surge level of U.S. troops would be needed in Iraq through next year. Major General Lynch, the commander of the southern portion of Baghdad, echoed that view only yesterday.

We in Congress have a constitutional responsibility to act now.

If we put off developing a consensus plan for the redeployment of U.S. forces, more of our troops will be needlessly killed and wounded. More innocent Iraqis will lose their lives. And, as today's public summaries of the National Intelligence Assessment on al-Qaida underscore, the war in Iraq has made our country less safe. It is an indictment of the ruinous policies and strategies this administration has pursued in Iraq, year after year.

We must end this treadmill trudge to nowhere. We must show the Iraqis that only they can save their country. It is time to shift focus back to Afghanistan and to rebuild our military and our defenses at home. It is time to restore our reputation as a nation united in combating terrorism but unwilling any longer to sacrifice our sons, our daughters or our values for a flawed policy that cannot succeed.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.