Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, today we mark the 100th day of the new Congress. We have much more to do on behalf of the American people, but we have already accomplished an awful lot.

We have heard the American people's call for accountability and competence in their Government, and we started making those goals a reality. We have returned the focus to the rights and interests of the American people.

As I have commended the members of the Judiciary Committee--and I commend the distinguished Presiding Officer as well as the other members for their help and active participation in the work of our committee--I come to the Senate today to thank the majority leader and those Senators who have been working so hard to restore balance to our Government, protect the liberties and rights of all Americans, and also to revive America's leadership in the world.

First and foremost, we are making progress restoring the Senate and Congress to their proper constitutional role. From the FBI's illegal and improper use of national security letters to the politically motivated dismissal of so many of the Nation's U.S. attorneys, there are concerns about the competence--but especially the independence--of the Department of Justice. This pattern of abuse of authority and mismanagement causes me, and I might say many Republicans as well as Democrats, to wonder whether the FBI and Department of Justice have been faithful stewards of the great trust the Congress and the American people have placed in them.

We need to keep our Nation safe, but we also have to respect the rights and the liberties of all Americans. In the previous Congress, the administration sought expanded powers in the PATRIOT Act to appoint U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation and to more freely use national security letters. You know, the administration got those powers, and almost immediately they bungled them. They bungled them badly.

In the Judiciary Committee, early oversight efforts included our January 18 hearing with Attorney General Gonzales. There we examined the change in course of this administration, which had engaged in warrantless wiretapping of Americans, contrary to the law, for years. Under the watchful eye of the new Congress, the President's program for warrantless wiretaps on Americans has been revised, and now the Government has to seek approval for those wiretaps from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court--something we have always expected. If our Government is going to inspect our papers, our computers, our voices, they should get a court order first.

We must engage in all surveillance necessary to prevent acts of terrorism, but we can and should do so in ways that protect the basic rights of all Americans, including the right to privacy. The issue has never been whether to monitor suspected terrorists but doing it legally and with proper checks and balances to prevent abuses. The Administration's recent reversal of course was a good first step.

Last month we held oversight hearings with FBI Director Mueller, and we called him to task for the longstanding FBI abuses of national security letters. The inspector general's report we insisted be provided included troubling findings of widespread illegal and improper use of national security letters to obtain Americans' phone and financial and credit and other records.

Nobody would stand for it if you had somebody--agents--walk into your home in the middle of the night grabbing these records. It is the same thing when they grab them electronically.

Inspector General Glenn Fine testified there could be thousands of additional violations among the tens of thousands of national security letters the FBI is now using, willy-nilly, each year.

The inspector general also found widespread use by the FBI of so- called ``exigent letters.'' These letters, which are not authorized by any statute, were issued at least 739 times to obtain Americans' phone records when there was often no emergency and never a follow-up subpoena, as the FBI had promised. Despite these extensive abuses, the top leadership at the FBI sat idly by for years, doing nothing to stop this practice.

We questioned the FBI Director about these matters and reports that the FBI has repeatedly submitted inaccurate information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in its efforts to obtain secret warrants in terrorism and espionage cases. It severely undermines the Government's credibility in the eyes of the Chief Judge of that court.

If the people charged with law enforcement in this country don't follow the law themselves, it all breaks down. Every one of us, every one of the 100 Senators, every one of us are required to follow the law. None of us--no American--is above the law, but it becomes even worse if those who are supposed to enforce the law do not follow

the law. These abuses are unacceptable. Director Mueller now knows that and knows these abuses and violations can no longer be continued or repeated.

The Judiciary Committee is now in the midst of an investigation in which we are uncovering an abuse of power that threatens the independence of U.S. Attorneys' Offices around the country. It undermines the trust and confidence of all Americans in Federal law enforcement. We are examining the mass firing of U.S. attorneys. We are trying to get to the truth of what happened so these abuses do not happen again. I want the American people, all Americans, to have a Justice Department and U.S. Attorneys' Offices that enforce the law without regard to political influence and partisanship. I want the American people to have confidence in Federal law enforcement. I want our Federal law enforcement officers to have the independence they need to be effective and merit the trust of the American people.

Sadly, what we have heard from the administration has been a series of shifting explanations and excuses and a lack of accountability or acknowledgment of the seriousness of this matter. The women and men replaced and whose reputations were then stained by those seeking to justify these firings as ``performance related'' were appointees of President Bush. Several had significant achievements in office and glowing performance reviews.

As we learn more details about the ousters of these U.S. attorneys, the story grows more troubling. Had we believed and accepted the initial testimony of the Attorney General of the United States and the other Department officials, then we would not have gotten to the truth. The White House and the Attorney General dodged Congress's questions. They ducked real accountability for years. In the past, they counted on a rubberstamping Congress to avoid accountability. The American people have a new Congress, and this is a Congress that asks questions and wants the truth, and we will get the truth. The Attorney General has admitted ``mistakes were made,'' but somehow he doesn't say what those mistakes were.

He will have another chance, yet another chance to tell the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth next Tuesday at our Judiciary Committee oversight hearing. The days when he could come by once a year and not answer questions are over.

I made no secret during his confirmation hearing of my concern whether Mr. Gonzales could serve as an independent Attorney General of the United States on behalf of the American people and leave behind his role as counselor to President Bush.

The Department of Justice should serve the American people by making sure the law is enforced without fear or favor. It is an oath I took when I was a prosecutor. That is the oath all prosecutors take, but it is an oath the Attorney General has to remember. The Department of Justice cannot be turned into a political arm of the White House.

Accountability has been lacking in this administration because there has been a ``rubberstamp'' Congress. Loyalty to the President is rewarded over all else. That lack of accountability and the lack of the checks and balances that foster it must end, and I hope it has ended. We do not need another commendation for the ``heckuva job'' for those who failed in their essential duties to the American people. True accountability means being forthcoming, and it means there are consequences for improper actions.

The White House continues to stand by the firings of the U.S. attorneys and despite assurances by the President that we would receive cooperation, documents and access to witnesses, the White House has yet to produce a single document or make any witnesses available.

Now we are learning that people in the White House were having ``off- book'' communications by using Republican political e-mail addresses, and they say these e-mails have not been preserved. I don't believe that. I don't believe that. You can't erase e-mails, not today. These e-mails have gone through too many servers. They can't say they have been lost. That is akin to saying the dog ate my homework. It doesn't work that way. Those e-mails are there, the White House just doesn't want to produce them. It is similar to the famous 18-minute gap in the Nixon White House tapes. They say these e-mails have been erased or misplaced.

They are there. The White House knows they are there, and we will subpoena them, if necessary, and we will have them because now, when the administration suddenly is facing meaningful oversight, they say they cannot produce the information. They have the information. They have to bring it out and show it to the American people. The administration has worn out the benefit of the doubt. They have undermined whatever credibility they had left.

The American people are right that they are entitled to full and honest testimony of the White House staff responsible for this debacle.

We have asked for administration officials and now former officials to cooperate with the Judiciary Committee in its inquiry, and I hope that they will. Through the committee's oversight work so far, we know some of the answers to some of the questions we have been asking, and the answers are troubling. We have learned that most of the U.S. attorneys that were asked to resign were doing their jobs well and were fired for not bending to the political will of some in Washington. Apparently, their reward for their efforts at rooting out serious public corruption is a kick out the door.

Along with these oversight matters, the Judiciary Committee has taken up questions relating to the war in Iraq and congressional authority to condition funding, the plight of Iraqi refugees, the recommendation of the Iraq Study Group on policing and the administration of justice in Iraq, and contracting fraud and abuse in Iraq.

We have examined enforcing our antitrust laws, restoring open government by reinvigorating the Freedom of Information Act, ending antitrust immunity for insurers, increasing drug competition, strengthening protections against identity theft, and providing for fair and comprehensive immigration reform.

We have also moved legislative initiatives. Indeed, I think the first legislation passed by the Senate this year was our bill to restore the cost-of-living adjustment for Federal judges. We have passed a bill to amend the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act to honor the contribution of Cesar Chavez and other outstanding Americans. We passed by a bipartisan vote of 94 to 2 a bill to repeal that part of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization that had contributed to the U.S. attorney firings and thereby moved decisively to repeal the Attorney General's unlimited authority to appoint so-called interim U.S. attorneys without Senate consideration. At long last, we have given final passage to the bill against animal fighting that has languished for so many years. And we have passed the Genocide Accountability Act, the first legislative result of the new subcommittee I worked with Senator Durbin to create within the Judiciary Committee on Human Rights and the Law.

I hope that the Senate will soon be considering a number of our other legislative initiatives. We have reported a court security bill, S. 378; a bill to increase drug competition by giving the FTC authority to stop drug companies from paying other companies not to compete, S. 316; a bill to establish a school loan program for those willing to serve as prosecutors and public defenders, S. 442; and legislation to reauthorize the successful Byrne grant program for law enforcement, S. 231. A number of additional items are not far behind, including a bill to reauthorize the COPS program, S. 368; and a bill that Senator Sessions and Senator Landrieu cosponsored attacking fraud in disaster and emergency relief funding. I hope to see action on our bill against war profiteering, S. 119, as well.

It is a new Congress. It is a new Congress that is off to a strong start in restoring accountability, revitalizing the checks and balances of our system, and earning back the public's trust in Government which was eroded during the rubberstamp Congress. Much remains to be done, but we have made meaningful progress in just 100 days.

Of course, I will yield.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New York. Of course, he is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and one of the most active members we have. He has spent countless hours on this issue. We talk every single day. We have worked together. I have been so proud of what he has done on that committee. He made my job a lot easier.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I would ask that the time not be charged to either side.

Mr. President, I wish to express my support for the bill before the Senate this week, S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. This legislation will put us on the path of progress by reversing the President's policy a policy that is holding back the promise of stem cell research.

It is unfortunate that the Congress must even spend time debating this measure. The majority of Americans support stem cell research, as does the Director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Elias Zerhouni. It has been 6 years since the President announced his administration's restrictive policy on stem cell research, which limited the number of stem cell lines available for use with Federal funding. Now we know that all of these lines are contaminated by the use of mouse feeder cells, and they will probably never meet the standards required for human treatment.

It is clear that, because of the President's policy, we are now years behind in developing therapies and cures for diseases such as diabetes, Alzheimer's and cancer. That is time that millions of Americans simply do not have to waste. For millions of others, this wasted time has dampened hope.

Some families who hold out hope for the potential of stem cell research are from Vermont. Many are either afflicted by, or know someone one who is

suffering from, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's or Lou Gehrig's disease. I have met these Vermonters, many of whom are advocating not for themselves, but for future generations who they hope will not endure the debilitating nature of these diseases.

There are others in Vermont who know firsthand the good this research could bring. These are the scientific researchers at the University of Vermont and Dartmouth College who are doing groundbreaking work that needs the support of our federal government to be truly successful. These scientists know that the most viable method for progress in research is to expand the number of embryonic stem cell lines that are available.

I would like to take a moment to also address some of the myths perpetrated about what S. 5 will and will not do. Let us be clear: This bill will not allow Federal funds to be used for the destruction of human embryos. While Federal dollars can be used for research on stem cell lines that are derived from human embryos, the creation of these lines cannot be funded with Federal moneys. S. 5 will do nothing to change this policy.

This legislation will also ensure that Federal funding will be used only for researching stem cells lines that are derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics. The in vitro fertilization process creates more embryos than are needed, and the remaining embryos will simply never be used. There are more than 400,000 of these embryos that are frozen in fertility clinics, the majority of which will ultimately be destroyed.

This week the Senate will vote on two stem cell bills. While I support both, only one of these bills will take us solidly forward. The time for passage of this legislation is now, and I urge the President not to veto this critical bill.

I hope that the President will heed the advice of his own chief medical researcher in the United States, NIH Director Dr. Zerhouni who, when he testified before the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee, said that American science would be better served, and the Nation would be better served, if we let our scientists have access to more cell lines.

As Congress is poised to send this legislation to the White House, I hope the President will take note of Dr. Zerhouni's remarks. I hope that he will also listen to Congress and the millions of Americans who believe that we should support all angles in stem cell research, and sign this bill.

Mr. President, this bill has broad bipartisan support with more than 300 co-sponsors in the House. The companion Senate bill is S. 261. The lead Senate sponsor is Senator Cantwell. There are 30 Senate cosponsors. The Senate Judiciary Committee considered and voted to report the bill favorably on March 8, 2007, and the Senate bill is on the Senate Business Calendar. The legislation in similar forms has passed one or both Houses of Congress several times. The bill also has strong endorsements ranging from the American Veterinary Medical Association to the poultry industry to hundreds of law enforcement groups nationwide. The bill has been endorsed by the United States Department of Agriculture, the Humane Society of the United States, and numerous other animal rights and law enforcement groups, including more than 400 police departments.

This bill contains a clarifying amendment like the one we adopted in the Senate Judiciary Committee to ensure that it does not affect legitimate hunting activities.

Animal fighting is cruel. In this spectacle, dogs and roosters are often drugged to make them hyper-aggressive and forced to keep fighting even after suffering severe injuries. The animals are enclosed in a pit that they cannot escape, and often are killed during the fights.

Animal fighting also spawns other criminal conduct, and endangers public safety. Animal fighting is often associated with illegal gambling, narcotics trafficking, public corruption, and gang activity. Cockfighting has been identified as a pathway for the spread of bird flu, and banning animal fighting is an important step to protect against this pandemic.

Federal anti-animal fighting legislation is already on the books, but this new law brings penalties for animal fighting more in line with other penalties for animal cruelty and creates new tools for law enforcement to enforce these laws nationwide. Those engaged in animal fighting ventures must know that this crime is serious and will be punished as a felony.

Mr. President, as a former prosecutor I am a strong supporter of the Marshals Service.

We have the Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bill to fund the U.S. Marshals Service, and there is already $25 million in this bill to support their important work, which is $11 million more than was requested by the President.

The amendment offered by the Senator from Nevada has a lot of appeal. Who would not want to support additional funding for the U.S. Marshals Service, or for a whole lot of other programs, for that matter. Police, fire departments, hospitals, schools--the list is limitless.

It is unfortunate that the Senator's amendment would be paid for by cutting $15 million in this supplemental bill, requested by the President, to fund international educational and cultural exchange programs. In other words, he reaches across subcommittees to a completely different budget from that which funds the Marshals Service. That is a mistake. It is a road we should not go down.

Should we also take money to train teachers in Afghanistan and use it instead to refurbish public schools in the United States? What about cutting funding for reconstruction in Lebanon to pay for new vehicles and equipment for our police and fire departments? Or we could cut the funding in this bill to combat the spread of avian flu and use it instead for victims of crime programs or drug treatment programs here at home.

Any of those amendments would pass overwhelmingly in the Senate.

But is that really how we want to do our business? The reputation of the United States today has taken a beating unparalleled in our history. We are reviled in the Muslim world. Even our traditional allies have lost faith in our leadership. During his recent trip to Latin America, President Bush encountered this hostility at every stop.

Our image has been tarnished, our influence badly eroded. This is an emergency bill to combat terrorism, and

these educational exchange programs, which provide Muslim students and professionals the opportunity to come to the United States for education and training, are among the most effective ways we have of combating extremism.

Exchanges have been shown to reverse negative perceptions and the spread of hatred. There are far too few tools at our fingertips that are this effective.

These funds would support, for example, a first-ever Islamic dialogue two-way exchange program to foster interfaith dialogue, sports exchanges to engage youth and provide the opportunity to visit the United States and summer programs for Muslim students to learn English. This amendment would cut $15 million in this bill for these programs, leaving only $10 million for educational and cultural exchanges for the whole world.

I share the Senator's concerns about the Adam Walsh Child Safety and Protection Act. We should increase funding for the Marshals Service. But this bill is not the place to do that. This bill is about combating terrorism and responding to humanitarian emergencies overseas. It would be a serious mistake to reduce funding for exchange programs that have strong bipartisan support. The President requested these funds, and he was right to do so. We cannot only look inward. We must look outward as well. No programs are more effective in countering the negative attitudes about America than the exchanges that bring people here from countries such as Egypt, Indonesia, Lebanon, and Pakistan to meet Americans and experience what life is like in the world's oldest democracy.

I support the intent of the amendment of the Senator from Nevada and will reluctantly vote for it, but if he had been willing, I would have been happy to have worked with him to obtain additional funds for the Marshals Service in the appropriate funding bill. Unfortunately he was not.

Mr. President, the supplemental contains a provision, section 1711, which was carefully worked out through discussions between my office, the offices of Senator Specter, Senator Brownback, Senator Kennedy, Senator Coleman and Senator Feingold, as well as with representatives of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the Department of State, and the National Security Council.

This provision contains six subsections, (a) through (f).

Subsections (a) and (d) were written by the administration.

Subsections (b) and (f) were written by the Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl.

Subsection (c) provides an exception for cases involving duress, which is consistent with the administration's policy except that this provision would codify it into law.

Section (e) is a reporting requirement.

That is the whole provision. It represents months of discussion and compromise on an issue that has been a focus of concern of faith-based organizations and humanitarian organizations, conservative and liberal, Democratic and Republican.

Here is the background.

Current law, as a result of overbroad amendments in the PATRIOT Act and Real ID Act, has been used to bar refugees and asylum seekers who were either members of groups who fought on the side of the United States, such as the Hmong, the Montagnards, and the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, or who were the victims of terrorist groups and forced to provide ``material support,'' such as food, shelter, or other services.

Administration officials have acknowledged that they have been inexcusably slow to deal with this problem. Thousands of refugees and hundreds of asylum seekers have been in limbo as a result. We now face the additional problem of Iraqi refugees, 7,000 of whom the President says should be admitted to the United States, being barred from admission unless we fix the law.

After considerable prodding, the administration has moved in the right direction. Two weeks ago, it took another welcome step, although we have not yet seen the results of this reported change of policy.

The number of refugees admitted to the United States would not be increased or decreased by this provision. That is determined by the numerical limit set by the President each year and by the amount we appropriate for refugee admissions.

Numerous editorials have described the horrific consequences for refugees who have been victimized by current law.

Just the titles of these editorials tell the story: ``Shutting Out Terrorism's Victims,'' ``Doctors Without Refuge,'' ``Anti-terror laws keeping out old Vietnam allies,'' ``Punishing the Persecuted,'' ``U.S. denies refuge to friends, the abused,'' ``The Refugee Mess,'' ``Excluding Friends,'' and finally, ``Fix This Law.''

I will ask that just three of these editorials be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks.

This provision is a compromise that would get our law back in sync with our values, but now the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, has raised a rule XVI point of order against this provision and had it stricken from the bill.

It is regrettable that one Senator, for whatever reason, has decided to torpedo this bipartisan effort. We have worked with the administration. We have worked with refugee organizations that know the hardship current law is causing for thousands of innocent people, legitimate refugees and asylum seekers, who have been denied admission. We have worked to find a reasonable middle ground.

But that isn't good enough for the Senator from Arizona, so we are back to square one. Individuals who fought alongside the United States in Vietnam, in Afghanistan, and elsewhere will continue to be barred under current law. Our provision would have fixed this illogical, unfair result, but now that provision has been stricken so those former allies--the Hmong, the Montagnards and others--will remain excluded.

Innocent victims of the material support bar will continue to wait for the Federal bureaucracy to address their cases--a wait that is well into its third year. Victims of terrorist groups like the FARC in Colombia or the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda get no help from the Congress.

I regret this action by the Senator from Arizona. By striking this provision he ensures the perpetuation of a policy that is contrary to our values, to our morals, and to our national traditions.

I wish to thank all Senators who have joined in this effort but particularly Senator Brownback, Senator Specter, Senator Kennedy, Senator Coleman, and Senator Feingold. I also wish to thank representatives of the humanitarian and other groups who have provided helpful information and advice, as well as officials in the administration who have made a sincere effort to work with us.

While the Senator from Arizona has singlehandedly prevented us from moving forward at this time, we will continue to work together to fix the law in a manner that reaffirms our commitment to the words that are carved in the Statue of Liberty.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the aforementioned editorials be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am glad that today the Senate is considering the Genocide Accountability Act, which closes a loophole in current law which has until now allowed those who commit or incite genocide to seek refuge in our country without fear of prosecution for their actions. This bill is the first legislation resulting from the work of the Judiciary Committee's new Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law. I thank Subcommittee Chairman Durbin for introducing the bill, and I was pleased to join him, along with subcommittee Ranking Member Coburn and Senators Feingold, Cornyn, and Kennedy in cosponsoring the bill. I have long called for greater U.S. involvement in resolving the crisis in Darfur and worked for greater accountability for those who commit war crimes. This bill is an important next step in working to do all we can to combat genocide throughout the world.

Too often, we in this country, the richest and most powerful Nation on Earth, have done too little to stop human rights atrocities in Sudan and elsewhere around the world. Many more lives could have been saved if we and other nations had shown stronger leadership. During the last 5 years, America's reputation has suffered tremendously. Some of our ability to lead on human rights issues has been needlessly and carelessly squandered. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have tarnished that role and that tradition. The secret prisons that the President confirmed last year and this administration's role in sending people to other countries where they would be tortured have led to condemnation by our allies, to legal challenges, and to criminal charges.

I was proud to work with Senator Durbin to create the Human Rights and the Law Subcommittee, which is helping us to better fulfill our role in a challenging global environment. This subcommittee will continue to closely examine some of the important and difficult legal issues that have increasingly been a focus of the Judiciary Committee and will work to reverse and correct the damaging policies established by this administration over the last 6 years.

The Genocide Accountability Act is a perfect example of the bipartisan, consensus legislation that this subcommittee was created to produce. The bill allows for prosecution of those found in the United States who have participated in horrific acts against humanity in places such as Bosnia, Rwanda, and Darfur, and gives Federal prosecutors the tools they need to bring these people to justice. This bill

would amend 18 U.S.C. 1091, the Genocide Convention Implementation Act--the Proxmire Act--to allow prosecution of non-U.S. nationals who are in the United States for genocide committed outside the country. In the past, Federal investigators have identified perpetrators of genocide, including the Rwandan and Bosnian genocides, who have come to the United States under false pretenses and have found safe haven here. Unfortunately, the Justice Department has not been able to prosecute these individuals because the Proxmire Act only criminalizes genocide committed by U.S. nationals or in the United States.

The Genocide Accountability Act would close this loophole, allowing Federal prosecutors to prosecute those who have committed or incited genocide who are in our country. This change would make the genocide statute conform with numerous existing Federal crimes that allow for similar extraterritorial jurisdiction if the offender is found in The United States, including torture, piracy, material support to terrorists, terrorism financing, and hostage taking.

I commend Senators Durbin and Coburn for holding a hearing on this important issue and for their diligent work to ensure that that this loophole in our law is closed. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to ensure that the United States takes this significant step in combating genocide worldwide.

Mr. President, I am sorry I even have to be on the floor, but I know the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, offered an amendment to strike a $2 million provision in the supplemental designated for the James M. Jeffords Institute. That is something, incidentally, that is already 100 percent paid for. It is not like the $1 trillion the Senator from Oklahoma supports for a needless war in Iraq.

The money, the $2 million identified to fund this center, is not designated as emergency or new. It is funded through a rescission to already existing dollars for the current fiscal year. It was going to be appropriated last year, but we never finished our appropriations bills and had to go to a continuing resolution.

These funds were included because Senator Jeffords championed policy initiatives and investments that focused on the long-term well-being and educational needs of all Americans. It was put in in a bipartisan way by Senators from both parties reflecting that.

Along with the leadership of the Appropriations Committee and the Senate, on both sides of the aisle, I felt this would be a fitting way to honor Senator Jeffords' service to our country while there is still time. Clearly, Senator Coburn does not feel that way. Sadly, that is not going to happen today. I think it is a disgrace.

Mr. President, as I said, I am disheartened that I need to come to the Senate floor to debate an amendment this afternoon that would strike a $2 million provision in the supplemental designated for the James M. Jeffords Institute that is 100 percent paid for already.

The U.S. Senate has many important issues to deal with right now. And this is just not one of them.

The Senator from Oklahoma has every right to offer this amendment. It is interesting, however, that he does not find it a priority to question the $1 trillion that our country has spent to fight the war in Iraq.

I can comfortably conclude, and this will be no surprise to the Senator from Oklahoma, that we share a different view about what the U.S. Senate should take time to debate on the floor.

The fiscal year 2007 supplemental appropriations bill includes $2 million to further the establishment of the James M. Jeffords Institute, a center for educational excellence at the University of Vermont. This is an effort to acknowledge the long and distinguished service to Vermont and our Nation of our former colleague and friend, Senator Jim Jeffords, in promoting educational and policy excellence in the fields of education, environment, health, and agriculture.

As a tribute to Senator Jeffords for his 32 years of service in both the House and Senate, $3 million was included in the fiscal year 2007 Labor-HHS Appropriations bill to support the UVM Education in Excellence program. However, because the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bills were left uncompleted by the last Congress, and

due to the need to wrap up the process with a continuing resolution, this program, which had been the work of Senator Jeffords, was not funded.

Senator Jeffords did not seek reelection last fall so he could spend more time with his family and to address ongoing health issues. I am sad to note that these health issues continue.

In light of these developments with his health, I have worked with the chairmen of the Appropriations Committee and Labor-HHS Subcommittee and Senate leadership to include funding for the Jeffords Institute in the bill we now consider.

I will note that the $2 million identified to fund the center is not designated emergency or new. The project is funded through a rescission to already existing dollars for the current fiscal year and therefore does not increase the overall spending level of this bill or existing fiscal year 2007 spending levels.

Throughout his life in public service, Senator Jeffords championed policy initiatives and investments that focus on and enhance the overall well-being and educational success of individuals from early childhood through later years.

He championed legislation to strengthen our Nation's education system and increase the opportunities for individuals with disabilities. In 1975, he entered the House of Representatives as a new Member wearing a neck brace--as Jim was fond of saying, he was the walking wounded from a tough election--and went on to coauthor what would later be known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. That landmark legislation has provided equal access to education for millions of students with disabilities, students who otherwise would have been shunted aside and this country would not have had the value of their achievements. As chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee, he continued to work tirelessly on education, job training, and disability legislation.

The Jeffords Institute continues those efforts by identifying and developing research and best practices that inform educational and social policies on early childhood, literacy, and youth development. A major focus of the institute will include collaboration with and preparation of teachers, administrators, and policymakers in the development and implementation of programs, policies, and practices that lead to positive, demonstrable outcomes in education and policy practices. Beyond the initial focus, which Senator Jeffords has been instrumental in shaping, the institute will expand its efforts to address policy and practice in the fields of environmental, health, and agriculture and their interrelationship with one another, with education being the overarching mission.

Senator Coburn's amendment to strike this provision from the supplemental appropriations bill is ill-considered. I think my colleagues will agree that Senator Jim Jeffords served Vermont well and, just as importantly, he served the House, Senate, and our Nation well. Were circumstances different, I would say that we could wait and find regular appropriations vehicles through which to fund this project.

I, along with the leadership of the Appropriations Committee and the Senate, believe this would be a fitting way to honor Senator Jeffords' service to our country while there is still time. Clearly, Senator Coburn does not feel that way. Sadly, that will not happen today. But I expect that the Senate will in due time give proper recognition to Senator Jeffords who we are so proud of in Vermont.

Mr. President, Senator Specter and I have joined together to offer amendment No. 755 the supplemental appropriations bill to authorize a cost-of-living adjustment, COLA, for the salaries of Justices and judges of the United States for fiscal year 2007.

I thank my friend, Senator Specter, for his leadership on this issue. I also thank the chairman of the Financial Services Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Durbin, and the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, for working with us on the modifications made to this amendment.

This is a step I supported taking--and that we should have taken--in the last Congress. As the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have worked diligently to preserve the independence of our Federal judiciary and to treat its members fairly.

At the beginning of this Congress, Senator Specter and I introduced legislation, S. 197, to authorize this COLA.

It passed the Senate by unanimous consent and now awaits consideration by the House. That bipartisan effort--designed to protect and strengthen the integrity and independence of our coequal branch of government--is a modest step towards addressing the issues raised by Chief Justice Roberts in his ``Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary.''

In 1975, Congress enacted the Executive Salary Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act, intended to give judges, Members of Congress and other high-ranking executive branch officials automatic COLAs as accorded other Federal employees unless specifically rejected by Congress. In 1981, Congress enacted section 140 of Public Law 97-92, mandating specific congressional action to give COLAs to judges. During the 21 years of section 140's existence, Congress has always accorded to the Federal judiciary co-equal respect by suspending section 140 whenever Congress has granted to itself and other Federal employees a COLA.

The modified bipartisan amendment offered by Senator Specter and I today authorizes a COLA for Federal judges consistent with the law and with fairness. The fiscal year 2007 joint funding resolution approved by Congress and signed into law by the President earlier this year increased the Judiciary budget by $250 million over fiscal year 2006 levels. It did not, however, suspend section 140, thus ensuring that no COLA would be provided for Federal judges during the current fiscal year unless other action is taken. Our amendment will rectify that situation.

I thank my colleagues for agreeing to this amendment to authorize the annual judicial COLA in fiscal year 2007. With it, we take another step toward preserving the judicial independence critical for upholding our system of government and protecting the rights of all Americans.

Mr. President, with this confirmation--and I expect Mr. Wu will be confirmed--we will have confirmed 14 lifetime appointments to the Federal bench so far this year. This is March. I mention that because, when President Clinton was in office and the Republicans controlled the Senate, there were only 17 confirmations during the entire 1996 session of the Senate.

For those who think there is partisanship in the confirmation of judges, yes, there has been. Fortunately, it has been my friends on the other side.

Today the Senate continues, as we have since the beginning of this Congress, to make progress on judicial nominations. The Senate will consider and, I believe, confirm the nomination of George H. Wu to be a United States District Judge for the Central District of California.

With this confirmation, the Senate will have confirmed 14 lifetime appointments to the Federal bench so far this year. There were only 17 confirmations during the entire 1996 session of the Senate. I have worked cooperatively with Members from both sides of the aisle on our committee and in the Senate to move quickly to consider and confirm these judicial nominations so that we can fill vacancies and improve the administration of justice in our Nation's Federal courts.

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts lists 48 remaining judicial vacancies, yet the President has sent us only 27 nominations for these vacancies. Twenty-one of these vacancies--almost half--have no nominee. Of the 20 vacancies deemed by the Administrative Office to be judicial emergencies, the President has yet to send us nominees for 10 of them. That means half of the judicial emergency vacancies are without a nominee.

Judge Wu's nomination has the support of his home State Senators, and I thank Senators Feinstein and Boxer for their support of this nomination.

Judge Wu has an extensive record of public service as a State trial judge, a Federal prosecutor, and a law professor. In his 14 years on the State trial bench, Judge Wu has served in the Los Angeles Municipal Court and in the Los Angeles Superior Court, handling an array of criminal and civil cases. Previously, Judge Wu worked on complex commercial matters in private practice for two Los Angeles law firms. Judge Wu has also served as a law professor at the University of Tennessee School of Law, and as an assistant U.S. attorney and later assistant division chief in the civil division of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California.

I am pleased that the nominee before us is an Asian-Pacific American. I have urged, and will continue to urge, the President to nominate men and women to the Federal bench who reflect the diversity of America. Racial and cultural diversity remains a pillar of strength for our country and one of our greatest

natural resources. Diversity on the bench helps ensure that the words ``equal justice under law,'' inscribed in Vermont marble over the entrance to the Supreme Court, are a reality and that justice is rendered fairly and impartially. Judicial decisions should reflect insight and experiences as varied as America's citizenry. A more representative judiciary helps cultivate public confidence in the judiciary which strengthens the independence of our Federal courts.

There is still much work to be done. Out of the 875 seats on the Federal judiciary, there are only 5 active Asian-Pacific American judges on the Federal bench, less than 1 percent of all Federal judges. President Bush has nominated only two Asian-Pacific American candidates during his 6 years in office, neither to a seat on a Federal circuit court. With outstanding lawyers like Dean Harold Koh of Yale, Professor Goodwin Liu of Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California at Berkeley, or attorneys Karen Narasaki, John Yang and Debra Yang, it is not as if there is a dearth of qualified candidates who would be universally endorsed.

Our Nation has highly qualified individuals of diverse heritages who would help to unify our Nation while adding to the diversity of our courts. I hope the President will send us more consensus nominees that reflect the rich diversity of our Nation.

I congratulate Judge Wu, and his family, on his confirmations today.

Mr. President, it is true Ms. Goodling's attorney has said that she will take the fifth amendment. Now, as both a former defense attorney and a former prosecutor, I respect the right under our Constitution for anybody to take the fifth so they won't say something that might incriminate them and bring about criminal charges against them from their own statements. But it is a little bit odd that in a letter from Ms. Goodling's attorney, he speaks that she does not want to face the fate of Mr. Libby, or words to that effect. Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury. He was convicted of obstruction of justice. While I realize many believe he is going to be pardoned, those are the reasons he was convicted.

I would have assumed that Ms. Goodling--who has been a very high- ranking member of the Department of Justice, would come in and tell the truth. If she takes the fifth amendment, that's a more difficult thing. We won't hear from her. If she feels that what she has to tell us would subject her to criminal prosecution, well, that raises some serious questions. We hope that others will testify and that they will testify honestly. We'll continue to ask people. But it is very, very difficult to get the facts when you have key members of the Bush-Cheney administration taking the fifth.

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

If I have any further time, I yield it back and I request the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the use of calculators be permitted on the floor of the Senate during consideration of the budget resolution.

Mr. President, I see the Senator from California on the floor, and I am about to yield to her. Could I ask, Mr. President, how much time is available to the Senator from Vermont or his designees?

Mr. President, the Senator from Vermont has 8 minutes; the Senator from California has 5?

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for her statement and her leadership. She has been so forthright in her comments right from the beginning of this scandal, and I appreciate it. I will have more to say about her efforts at the end of my statement.

In a few minutes, the Senate will have an opportunity to begin restoring accountability and checks and balances to what is our Government, the Government that belongs to all Americans. We should pass the Preserving U.S. Attorneys Independence Act. We have to close a loophole that has been exploited by the Department of Justice and the White House--a loophole that led to the mass firings of U.S. attorneys.

When we roll back this excessive authority given the Attorney General by the PATRIOT Act reauthorization, we can restore--or at least take a step toward restoring--the independence of our Federal law enforcement system. We will be acting to reverse one more incident of overstepping by an earlier ``rubberstamp'' Congress, which was all too often willing to dance to the tune of a power-hungry White House.

The Attorney General--and I will agree with the Attorney General on this--he is right that mistakes were made. Mistakes were made, all right. It was a mistake to conduct the mass firings to send the message to our U.S. attorneys that they had better act like ``loyal Bushies''-- their words, the Administration's words--rather than act as objective law enforcement officers. Mistakes were made, absolutely.

It was a mistake to malign the reputations of these officials by contending that the firings were prompted by their badly performing their law enforcement responsibilities.

It was a mistake to mislead the Senate Judiciary Committee in hearings and Senators during phone calls and in meetings about the firings.

It was a mistake to give the Attorney General the unlimited authority to fill these critical posts with his selections or the selections of the White

House without the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate.

But most of all, it was a mistake to inject crassly partisan objectives into the selection, evaluation, firing, and replacement of the top Federal law enforcement officers in our country.

I still have no sense that the administration or the Attorney General understand the seriousness of this matter. The apparent effort to corrupt the Federal law enforcement function for partisan political purposes has cast a cloud over all U.S. attorneys. Now every U.S. attorney is under a cloud. People are asking about those who were retained as ``loyal Bushies.'' People are wondering what prosecutorial judgments were affected. These mass firings have served to undermine the confidence of the American people in the Department of Justice and the local U.S. attorneys.

In the same way that any employer has the power to hire, we understand that people cannot be fired because they are Catholic or because of their race or because they are a whistleblower. The power of employment is not without limit. It can be abused. When it is abused in connection with political influence over Federal law enforcement the American people and their representatives in Congress have a right to be concerned. We need to get to the bottom of this situation. We need the facts, not more spin, not another concocted cover story.

The U.S. Department of Justice must be above politics. The Attorney General of the United States has to ensure the independence of Federal law enforcement from political influence. The Department of Justice should serve the American people by making sure the law is enforced without fear or favor. It should not be a political arm of the White House.

The Attorney General is not the President's lawyer. The President has a lawyer. The Attorney General is the Attorney General for the people of the United States of America--all of us--Republicans, Democrats and Independents.

The advice and consent check on the appointment power is a critical function of the Senate. That is what this administration insisted be eliminated by the provision it had inserted in the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. That measure struck the time limit on the ability of the Attorney General to name a so-called interim U.S. attorney. And that is what this bill, the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007, is intended to restore. It is vital that those holding these critical positions be free from any inappropriate influence.

We are finding out more and more abuses by this administration. We learned for the first time earlier this month in testimony by a Congressional Research Service attorney before the House Judiciary Committee about another loophole this administration has tried to create and exploit. In 2003, the Department's Office of Legal Counsel issued a secret legal opinion to try to create an end run around the Senate's role. This administration is the first I am aware that is employing the Vacancies Act in addition to the interim U.S. attorney appointment authority sequentially. The horror that Senator Kyl speaks about is one that this administration created and has apparently been employing. That is not what Congress intended.

With the passage of S. 214 today we should put an end to that untoward practice, too. As one of the authors of S. 214 and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I say it is not our intent to allow such an abuse by having the Vacancies Act provisions and those of S. 214 used in sequence. We do not intend for the Attorney General to use such a misguided approach and seek to install a choice for 330 days without the advice and consent of the Senate. Nor do we intend for the Attorney General to make Senator Kyl's other suggestion a reality by seeking to use the 120-day appointment authority more than once. It is not designed or intended to be used repeatedly for the same vacancy. These double dipping approaches run afoul of congressional intent, the law and our bill. Our bill should put a stop to that, too. Instead, the President should fulfill his responsibilities, work with home State Senators and nominate qualified people to serve as U.S. attorneys so that they can be considered by the Senate and confirmed. If he does not the district court will be restored the stopgap authority they previously had.

I was pleased that Senator Feinstein worked so hard with Senator Specter to craft the consensus measure we consider today to reinstate vital limits on the Attorney General's authority and bring back incentives for the administration to fill vacancies with Senate- confirmed nominees. We reported out this measure with bipartisan support 13-6 after debating and voting down several amendments, including amendments similar to those offered today by Senators Kyl and Sessions. We should again vote down these amendments and pass the bipartisan bill without delay.

Senator Sessions' amendment would attach certain conditions to a district court's authority to appoint an interim U.S. attorney after 120 days, but none to the Attorney General's interim appointment authority. Our bill is meant to roll back a change in law that allowed an abuse of power by the administration and the Department of Justice. There is no record of problems with the appointment of interim appointments by the district court. In fact, for almost a hundred years until the law was changed in 1986 during the Reagan administration, district courts were the sole means of appointing interim U.S. attorneys. There are many criteria that we want U.S. attorneys to possess--chief among them the ability to enforce the laws independently without fear or favor. But both the prerogatives of the administration in putting in place the people it wants and the home State Senators in ensuring fairness and independence in their States are protected when the President nominates and the Senate considers and confirms U.S. attorneys.

Senator Kyl's amendment provides unjustified limitations on the Senate's role in confirming U.S. attorneys that could short-circuit the Senate's ability to undertake a thorough consideration of a nominee's qualifications and wholly disregards the role of the home State Senators.

It is true that this President has been slow in nominating U.S. attorneys. There are currently 22 vacancies and only three nominees. Building incentives for this President to fulfill his responsibilities and work with home State Senators would be a good thing. That is not what Senator Kyl's amendment does. Instead, in the guise of setting a time limit on the Senate, what it actually does is override the traditional deference paid to home State Senators and the Judiciary Committee itself. In fact, no time limit is needed to require the committee or the Senate to act on qualified nominees.

During this President's term, U.S. attorneys have been confirmed quickly, taking an average of 68 days from nomination to confirmation. Only three people nominated to be U.S. attorneys have not been confirmed and two of those withdrawn by the President. In fact, when I first chaired the Judiciary Committee during President Bush's first term, we confirmed 84 of President Bush's U.S. attorney nominations in a little more than a year.

Some critics of the district court's role in filling vacancies beyond 120 days claim it to be inconsistent with sound separation of powers principles. That is contrary to the Constitution, our history, our practices, and recent court rulings. In 2000, in United States v. Hilario, the First Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the prior law on interim appointments, including the district court's role. In fact, the practice of judicial officers appointing officers of the court is well established in our history and from the earliest days.

Morrison v. Olson should have laid to rest the so-called separation of powers concern now being trumpeted to justify these political maneuvers within the Justice Department. Certainly no Republicans now defending this administration voiced concern when a panel of judges appointed Ken Starr to spend millions in taxpayer dollars going after President Clinton as a court-appointed prosecutor.

During committee consideration we heard from some who had not read what the Constitution says. The Constitution provides congressional power to direct the appointment power. In article II, the part of the Constitution that this administration reads as if it says that all power resides with the President, the President's appointment power is limited by the power of Congress. Indeed, between its provisions

calling for appointments with the advice and consent of the Senate and for the President's limited power to make recess appointments, the Constitution provides:

But the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such

inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President

alone, in the courts of law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Just last week, the Eastern District of Arkansas joined at least two other courts addressing the interim appointment of U.S. attorneys, the First Circuit in Hilario, and the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Gantt, in concluding that U.S attorneys are ``inferior officers.'' Thus, the Constitution contemplates exactly what our statutes and practices had previously provided and what our bill will restore. Congress is well within its authority when it vests in the courts a share of the appointment power for those who appear before them.

One of the finest Attorneys General of the United States ever to serve was Robert H. Jackson. He also served as one of our most admired Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. He was a principal prosecutor at the International Military Tribunal for German war criminals in Nuremberg after World War II.

The day after I was born, on April 1, 1940, as a new Attorney General, he spoke to the U.S. attorneys from across the country. They were assembled in the Great Hall at the Department of Justice in Washington. He told them about the responsibilities of being a Federal prosecutor. I think it is appropriate today to recall his guidance. His words serve to show the Senate and the American people how wrong this Administration's practices are and how far off the mark.

This is what then-Attorney General Jackson said and they are words that serve today. He said:

The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and

reputation than any other person in America. His discretion

is tremendous. While the prosecutor at his best is one of the

most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from

malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst.

Because of this immense power to strike at citizens, not

with mere individual strength, but with all of the force of

government itself, the post of Federal District Attorney from

the very beginning has been safeguarded by presidential

appointment, requiring confirmation of the Senate of the

United States.

Your responsibility in your several districts for law

enforcement and for its methods cannot be wholly surrendered

to Washington.

Robert H. Jackson continued:

If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it

follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the

most dangerous power of the prosecutor: That he will pick

people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases

that need to be prosecuted.

It is in this realm in which the prosecutor picks some

person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects

some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an

offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting

power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal,

and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the

predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong

political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the

way of the prosecutor himself.

In times of fear or hysteria political, racial, religious,

social, and economic groups, often for the best of motives,

cry for the scalps of individuals or groups because they do

not like their views. Those who are in office or apt to

regard as ``subversive'' the activities of any of those who

would bring about a change of administration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Attorney General Jackson's full statement be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. President, I have said many times on this floor that one of the greatest opportunities I have ever had in my public life was to serve for 8 years as a prosecutor. Prosecutors have to be independent. Prosecutors have to prosecute without fear of favor. Prosecutors can never not prosecute someone because they are a Republican or Democrat; they have to do it because they have to uphold the law.

Let us restore the situation where our Federal prosecutors, whether we have a Democratic President or a Republican President, serve the law and not a political purpose. That is what prosecutors have to do. Many of us in this Chamber have served as prosecutors and know that is what we meant when we took our oath of office. Let's not have a system that at the outset subverts that oath of office.

I wish to commend Senator Feinstein for leading this effort and Senator Specter, the ranking Republican on our committee, for joining her. We have all cosponsored the substitute to restore the statutory checks that existed. I commend the many Senators who contributed to this debate, including the majority leader, Senator Kennedy, Senator Durbin, both Senators from Arkansas, Senator Whitehouse, Senator McCaskill, Senator Schumer, Senator Murray, Senator Cardin, and Senator Klobuchar.

Many speak from their own experiences as former prosecutors.

Let's pass this bill without amendments. We have a piece of legislation to protect the integrity of prosecutors and law enforcement. Let's pass it without amendment, pass it as it is, and strike a blow for the integrity of our Federal prosecutors and strike a blow for law enforcement. Because if you politicize a prosecutor, you politicize everybody in the whole chain of law enforcement. We should never do that. Let's pass this bill and restore integrity to Federal law enforcement.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

The Federal Prosecutor

(By Robert H. Jackson, Attorney General of the United States, April 1,

1940)

It would probably be within the range of that exaggeration

permitted in Washington to say that assembled in this room is

one of the most powerful peace-time forces known to our

country. The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty,

and reputation than any other person in America. His

discretion is tremendous. He can have citizens investigated

and, if he is that kind of person, he can have this done to

the tune of public statements and veiled or unveiled

intimations. Or the prosecutor may choose a more subtle

course and simply have a citizen's friends interviewed. The

prosecutor can order arrests, present cases to the grand jury

in secret session, and on the basis of his one-sided

presentation of the facts, can cause the citizen to be

indicted and held for trial. He may dismiss the case before

trial, in which case the defense never has a chance to be

heard. Or he may go on with a public trial. If he obtains a

conviction, the prosecutor can still make recommendations as

to sentence, as to whether the prisoner should get probation

or a suspended sentence, and after he is put away, as to

whether he is a fit subject for parole. While the prosecutor

at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our

society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he

is one of the worst.

These powers have been granted to our law enforcement

agencies because it seems necessary that such a power to

prosecute be lodged somewhere. This authority has been

granted by people who really wanted the right thing done--

wanted crime eliminated--but also wanted the best in our

American traditions preserved.

Because of this immense power to strike at citizens, not

with mere individual strength, but with all the force of

government itself, the post of Federal District Attorney from

the very beginning has been safeguarded by presidential

appointment, requiring confirmation of the Senate of the

United States. You are thus required to win an expression of

confidence in your character by both the legislative and the

executive branches of the government before assuming the

responsibilities of a federal prosecutor.

Your responsibility in your several districts for law

enforcement and for its methods cannot be wholly surrendered

to Washington, and ought not to be assumed by a centralized

Department of Justice. It is an unusual and rare instance

in which the local District Attorney should be superseded

in the handling of litigation, except where he requests

help of Washington. It is also clear that with his

knowledge of local sentiment and opinion, his contact with

and intimate knowledge of the views of the court, and his

acquaintance with the feelings of the group from which

jurors are drawn, it is an unusual case in which his

judgment should be overruled.

Experience, however, has demonstrated that some measure of

centralized control is necessary. In the absence of it

different district attorneys were striving for different

interpretations or applications of an Act, or were pursuing

different conceptions of policy. Also, to put it mildly,

there were differences in the degree of diligence and zeal in

different districts. To promote uniformity of policy and

action, to establish some standards of performance, and to

make available specialized help, some degree of centralized

administration was found necessary.

Our problem, of course, is to balance these opposing

considerations. I desire to avoid any lessening of the

prestige and influence of the district attorneys in their

districts. At the same time we must proceed in all districts

with that uniformity of policy which is necessary to the

prestige of federal law.

Nothing better can come out of this meeting of law

enforcement officers than a rededication to the spirit of

fair play and decency that should animate the federal

prosecutor. Your positions are of such independence and

importance that while you are being diligent, strict, and

vigorous in law enforcement you can also afford to be just.

Although the government technically loses its case, it has

really won if justice has been done. The lawyer in public

office is justified in seeking to leave behind him a good

record. But he must remember that his most alert and severe,

but just, judges will be the members of his own profession,

and that lawyers rest their good opinion of each other not

merely on results accomplished but on the quality of the

performance. Reputation has been called ``the shadow cast by

one's daily life.'' Any prosecutor who risks his day-to-day

professional name for fair dealing to build up statistics of

success has a perverted sense of practical values, as well as

defects of character. Whether one seeks promotion to a

judgeship, as many prosecutors rightly do, or whether he

returns to private practice, he can have no better asset than

to have his profession recognize that his attitude toward

those who feel his power has been dispassionate, reasonable

and just.

The federal prosecutor has now been prohibited from

engaging in political activities. I am convinced that a good-

faith acceptance of the spirit and letter of that doctrine

will relieve many district attorneys from the embarrassment

of what have heretofore been regarded as legitimate

expectations of political service. There can also be no doubt

that to be closely identified with the intrigue, the money

raising, and the machinery of a particular party or faction

may present a prosecuting officer with embarrassing

alignments and associations. I think the Hatch Act should be

utilized by federal prosecutors as a protection against

demands on their time and their prestige to participate in

the operation of the machinery of practical politics.

There is a most important reason why the prosecutor should

have, as nearly as possible, a detached and impartial view of

all groups in his community. Law enforcement is not

automatic. It isn't blind. One of the greatest difficulties

of the position of prosecutor is that he must pick his cases,

because no prosecutor can even investigate all of the cases

in which he receives complaints. If the Department of Justice

were to make even a pretense of reaching every probable

violation of federal law, ten times its present staff would

be inadequate. We know that no local police force can

strictly enforce the traffic laws, or it would arrest half

the driving population on any given morning. What every

prosecutor is practically required to do it to select the

cases for prosecution and to select those in which the

offense is the most flagrant, the public harm the greatest,

and the proof the most certain.

If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it

follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the

most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick

people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases

that need to be prosecuted. With the law books filled with a

great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance

of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the

part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question

of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for

the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the

man and then searching the law books, or putting

investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in

this realm--in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he

dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of

unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the

greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is

here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real

crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or

governing group, being attached to the wrong political views,

or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the

prosecutor himself.

In times of fear or hysteria political, racial, religious,

social, and economic groups, often from the best of motives,

cry for the scalps of individuals or groups because they do

not like their views. Particularly do we need to be

dispassionate and courageous in those cases which deal with

so-called ``subversive activities.'' They are dangerous to

civil liberty because the prosecutor has no definite

standards to determine what constitutes a ``subversive

activity,'' such as we have for murder or larceny. Activities

which seem benevolent and helpful to wage earners, persons on

relief, or those who are disadvantaged in the struggle for

existence may be regarded as ``subversive'' by those whose

property interests might be burdened or affected thereby.

Those who are in office are apt to regard as ``subversive''

the activities of any of those who would bring about a change

of administration. Some of our soundest constitutional

doctrines were once punished as subversive. We must not

forget that it was not so long ago that both the term

``Republican'' and the term ``Democrat'' were epithets with

sinister meaning to denote persons of radical tendencies that

were ``subversive'' of the order of things then dominant.

In the enforcement of laws which protect our national

integrity and existence, we should prosecute any and every

act of violation, but only overt acts, not the expression of

opinion, or activities such as the holding of meetings,

petitioning of Congress, or dissemination of news or

opinions. Only by extreme care can we protect the spirit as

well as the letter of our civil liberties, and to do so is a

responsibility of the federal prosecutor.

Another delicate task is to distinguish between the federal

and the local in law enforcement activities. We must bear in

mind that we are concerned only with the prosecution of acts

which the Congress has made federal offenses. Those acts we

should prosecute regardless of local sentiment, regardless of

whether it exposes lax local enforcement, regardless of

whether it makes or breaks local politicians.

But outside of federal law each locality has the right

under our system of government to fix its own standards of

law enforcement and of morals. And the moral climate of the

United States is as varied as its physical climate. For

example, some states legalize and permit gambling, some

states prohibit it legislatively and protect it

administratively, and some try to prohibit it entirely.

The same variation of attitudes towards other law-

enforcement problems exists. The federal government could not

enforce one kind of law in one place and another kind

elsewhere. It could hardly adopt strict standards for loose

states or loose standards for strict states without doing

violence to local sentiment. In spite of the temptation to

divert our power to local conditions where they have become

offensive to our sense of decency, the only long-term policy

that will save federal justice from being discredited by

entanglements with local politics is that it confine itself

to strict and impartial enforcement of federal law, letting

the chips fall in the community where they may. Just as there

should be no permitting of local considerations to stop

federal enforcement, so there should be no striving to

enlarge our power over local affairs and no use of federal

prosecutions to exert an indirect influence that would be

unlawful if exerted directly.

The qualities of a good prosecutor are as elusive and as

impossible to define as those which mark a gentleman. And

those who need to be told would not understand it anyway. A

sensitiveness to fair play and sportsmanship is perhaps the

best protection against the abuse of power, and the citizen's

safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human

kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law

and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with

humility.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that between the votes there be 2 minutes equally divided in the usual fashion.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next two votes be 10 minutes in duration.

Mr. President, we are trying to put the law back to the way it was before this little amendment was slipped into the PATRIOT Act. We should oppose the amendment of the Senator from Alabama. It would not put it back the way it was. Actually, under this amendment, the Senator from Alabama could not have been appointed U.S. attorney, and former Attorney General Thornburg and former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson could not have been.

The President should move quickly to appoint the U.S. attorney if there is a vacancy, but in the meantime, the judges are in the best position to appoint somebody. I hope a district court never has to make an appointment. But let's assume you have a case where there is widespread corruption. The judge has to be able to put in someone independent. It worked well for 100 years. It was changed by something slipped into the PATRIOT Act. Let's go back to the way we were, Mr. President.

I oppose this amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. President, I believe there are 2 minutes equally divided. I simply ask all Senators, send a very strong signal. We want to correct the mistake made in the PATRIOT Act, a mistake that has been utilized the wrong way. We want to go back to the appointment of U.S. attorneys the way they should be appointed. We want to have the advice and consent of the Senate. I urge all Senators to vote for the legislation Senator Feinstein and I and Senator Specter and others have introduced.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Grassley, I ask unanimous consent that Anne Freeman and Lynda Simmons of the Finance Committee staff be given privileges of the floor from March 19 through March 25.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during consideration of the budget resolution and any votes thereon that Susan Reeves, a congressional fellow with the Budget Committee, and Seema Mittal, a Budget Committee intern, be granted floor privileges.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania.

First, I thank the Senators who began this debate. I have been told a number of family matters changed the ability of some to be here.

Over the last several months, the Judiciary Committee has used hearings, investigation, and oversight to uncover an abuse of power that threatens the independence of U.S. Attorney's Offices around the country and the trust of all Americans in the independence of our Federal law enforcement officials. We have probed the mass firings of U.S. attorneys. We are trying to get to the truth in order to prevent these kinds of abuses from happening again.

So today, the Senate finally begins debate on S. 214; that is, the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007. The bill was initially introduced by Senator Feinstein and me on January 9. On January 18 during a hearing on oversight of the Department of Justice, we asked the Attorney General about these firings. We then followed up with two hearings devoted to the matter on February 6 and March 6. I placed the bill on the agenda for the Judiciary Committee's first business meeting on January 25 but action on the measure was delayed until our meeting on February 8. At the time we debated the bill, considered and rejected amendments, and the committee on a bipartisan basis voted 13 to 6 to report favorably the Feinstein-Specter-Leahy substitute.

We have sought Senate consideration of this bill for more than a month now, but Republican objections have prevented that debate and vote. But through the majority leader's persistence, he was ultimately able to obtain consent to proceed to this measure today. I thank all Senators for finally allowing it to go forward.

My friend from California, Senator Feinstein, gave our bill a straightforward title: ``The Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007.'' We need to close the loophole exploited by the Department of Justice and the White House that facilitated this abuse.

The bill we have before us was initially fought by the Department of Justice when it was in committee. It appears that even after these scandals, there are people there who want to continue to have this loophole that has been so badly misused. But likely because of the public outcry against the administration's attempt to maintain that loophole and the ability to do what no one intended them to do, we

had a meeting in my office on March 8 in which the Attorney General finally said the administration would no longer oppose this bill. So I trust that tomorrow when the Senate votes on this legislation, we will pass it and take a step toward restoring the independence of Federal law enforcement in this country.

Even if we pass the bill, the Judiciary Committee will continue to investigate the firings. We will summon whoever is needed to learn the truth. What we have already learned from the few documents we have seen from the Department of Justice appear to confirm the Attorney General, officials at the Department of Justice, and officials at the White House had previously misled Congress and the American people about the mass firings and the reasons behind them.

The most fundamental problem is that this administration has apparently insisted on corrupting Federal law enforcement by injecting crassly partisan objectives into the selection and evaluation and firing and replacement of top Federal law enforcement officers around our country--our U.S. attorneys.

When you corrupt it at that level, at the prosecutor level, you affect everybody--all the police, all the investigators, all the agents who report to the U.S. Attorney's Office--because if they think the investigations they carry out have to reflect certain partisan politics, then they cannot do their job. Ultimately, it hurts not just the people in law enforcement, it hurts every man and woman in the United States of America.

We have heard the Attorney General and even the President use what William Schneider has called the ``past exonerative'' tense in conceding ``mistakes were made.'' The ``past exonerative'' tense. I remember conjugating my verbs in grade school. We learned about verbs, adjectives, adverbs, everything else. I guess it took this administration to bring up the ``past exonerative'' tense. Sister Mary Gonzaga probably would have wondered what I was saying had I come up with that when I was in school.

Now let's take a look at their use of this ``past exonerative'' tense. Attorney General Gonzales has yet to specify what mistakes he made. So what mistakes were made? Was it a mistake to allow the White House, through the President's top political operative and his White House counsel, to force the firing of a number of high-performing, Bush-appointed U.S. attorneys? Or when he says ``mistakes were made,'' did he mean it was a mistake for the President and his top political operatives to tell the Attorney General and others in the Department about concerns that U.S. attorneys are not pushing fast enough or hard enough to indict Democrats but were pushing too hard and too fast in indicting corrupt Republicans? Was that the past mistake the President and the Attorney General meant? Or when the Attorney General and the President say ``past mistakes were made,'' did they mean it was a mistake to generate, with White House political operatives, a hit list for firing hard-working U.S. attorneys and to ensure that what they call--and these were their words--``loyal Bushies'' are retained? Or when they say ``mistakes were made,'' did they mean it was a mistake to name more ``loyal Bushies'' to replace those U.S. attorneys who have shown the kind of independence they are supposed to show in exercising their law enforcement authority and who have acted without fear or favor based on political party?

Because when a crime is committed, you do not ask whether the victim was a Republican or a Democrat. You ask if a crime was committed. If a crime was committed, you expect the prosecutor to prosecute. You do not expect them to be fired if they step on the toes of either political party.

This is an administration that seeks to justify its unilateralism by an expansive application of what it calls a ``unitary executive theory''--everything comes from the President on down. But do you know what. With all that authority and all that control, when they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar all of a sudden no one knows anything, no one can remember anything, no one did anything, and no one told the President. ``Oh, my goodness gracious, we didn't know this happened until we picked up the papers.'' Obviously, they did not know it happened when they were testifying up here under oath the first time around to tell us what happened.

Instead, ``mistakes were made.'' Is the only ``mistake'' they are now willing to concede their failure to cover up the White House influence over the Justice Department? Is the only ``mistake'' they will admit that they got caught in a series of misleading statements to Congress, the media, and the American people? I still wonder if those in the administration or the Attorney General understand the seriousness of this problem.

Of course, mistakes were made. That is why we are here. It is our oversight duty to discover who made those mistakes and how and why they made them. I have said many times, the Members of the Senate and the Members of the other body should never be rubberstamps. We are elected independently. We respond to the American people. We are supposed to ask questions when something happens.

What we have seen so far corrupts the Federal law enforcement function. It has cast a cloud over all U.S. attorneys. Now every U.S. attorney is under that cloud. People are asking: If they were not fired, if they were kept on, is that because they are ``loyal Bushies''? Does that mean they will only go after crime if it hurts Democrats but not if it hurts Republicans? What an awful signal to send to law enforcement. This is a crippling signal to send to law enforcement.

Those fired have had their reputations rehabilitated to some degree by coming forward as we have publicly examined the facts of their firings. But those circumstances raise questions with respect to those retained and what they had to do to please the White House political operatives in order to keep their jobs. The mass firings have thus served to undermine the confidence of the American people in the Department of Justice and their local U.S. attorneys.

A recent study of Federal investigations of elected officials and candidates shows a political slant in the Bush Justice Department in public corruption cases. The study found that between 2001 and 2006, 79 percent of the elected officials and candidates who have faced a Federal investigation were Democrats and only 18 percent Republicans. It seems their track record is wanting, and they have been caught again with their hand in the cookie jar.

Of course the President has the power to appoint U.S. attorneys. Nobody questions that. What is raising concerns is the apparent abuse of that authority by removing U.S. attorneys for improper reasons. In the same way any employer has the power to hire, we know people cannot be fired because they are Catholic or because of their race or because they are whistleblowers.

The power of employment is not without limit. It can be abused. When it is abused in connection with political influence over Federal law enforcement, the American people and those of us who are entrusted with the power to represent them have a right to be concerned. We need the facts. We do not need more spin. We do not need another cover story. We do not need another ``We will come up to the Hill. We will brief you on this. Let's have a quiet little briefing. We will tell you what is going on.'' And then we pick up the paper 2 days later and find out what they left out.

Oh, I want a briefing, all right. I want a briefing where they stand before us and raise their right hand and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help them God. Then we will ask them questions; both Democrats and Republicans will. And the American people will be able to determine who is telling the truth.

I made no secret during our confirmation proceedings of my concern whether Mr. Gonzales could serve as an independent Attorney General on behalf of the American people and leave behind his role as counselor to President Bush.

As the Nation's chief Federal law enforcement officer, he must carry out his responsibilities and exercise his awesome authority on behalf of the American people. He has to enforce the law. He has to honor the rule of law. He

must act with the independence necessary to investigate and prosecute wrongdoing without fear or favor.

The political interests of the President cannot be his guiding light. When he said as recently as January 18 at our hearing that the President is his ``principal,'' when he says in an interview he wears two hats--as a member of the President's staff and as head of the Justice Department--then he has forgotten what the Attorney General is.

The President has a lawyer. The President has counsel. It is not the Attorney General. This is not the Attorney General of the President. This is the Attorney General of the United States of America. His clients are the American people and his principles must be devoid of partisan politics. He is not there as the President's loyal counsel. He is there as the Attorney General of the United States of America, for every single one of us. His mission is not to provide legalistic excuses or defenses for unlawful actions of the administration, such as the warrantless wiretapping of Americans or the use of torture and the issuing of signing statements to excuse following the law. He is not the one who should be excusing this kind of outrageous conduct. He should enforce the law. He should ensure that Federal law enforcement is above politics. What kind of signal do we send to our Federal law enforcement agencies if we suggest to them they cannot do their job without checking the political credentials of the people they are investigating?

The President can pick anybody he wants to serve on his White House staff--and he does. But when it comes to the U.S. Department of Justice and to the U.S. attorneys in our home States, Senators have a say and a stake in ensuring fairness and independence to prevent the Federal law enforcement function from untoward political influence. That is why the law and the practice has always been these appointments require Senate confirmation. The advice and consent check on the appointment power is a critical function of the Senate. That is what this administration insisted be eliminated. They wanted to do away with that check and balance. They wanted to do away with the confirmation process. So they had inserted in the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act a provision to remove limits on the ability of the Attorney General to name an interim U.S. attorney. That is what our bill intends to restore.

We have seen again the effects of letting politics infiltrate the Department and undermine its independence and the independence of its law enforcement function. As we have learned more about these events over the last few months, I was reminded of a dark time some 30 years ago when President Nixon forced the firing of the Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox. Not since what came to be known as the ``Saturday Night Massacre'' have we witnessed anything of that magnitude. The calls to the U.S. attorneys across the country last December, by which they were forced to resign, were extraordinary.

Unlike during the Watergate scandal, there is no Elliott Richardson or William Ruckelshaus seeking to defend the independence of the Federal prosecutors. Instead, we have a cabal of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys in the White House, all apparently collaborating in efforts to sack a number of outstanding U.S. attorneys. Then when it becomes public and when the first time in 6 years the House and Senate actually dare ask questions about what is going on, the administration, amazed they have been questioned about their actions, starts a series of shifting explanations and excuses. Lack of accountability or acknowledgment of the seriousness of this matter makes it all the more troubling.

The Attorney General's initial response at our January 18 hearing when we asked about these matters was to brush aside any suggestion that politics and the appearance of ongoing corruption investigations were factors in the mass firings. But now we know that contrary to what he told us then, these factors did play a role in this troubling project.

Today and tomorrow we can take a step forward by fixing the statutory excess that opened the door to these untoward actions. I commend Senator Feinstein for leading this effort. I commend Senator Specter for joining her. We have all cosponsored the substitute to restore the statutory checks that have existed for the last 20 years. It is time to take that first step toward restoring independence by rolling back a change in law that has contributed to this abuse.

There have been no good answers to our questions about why the administration removed U.S. attorneys without having anybody lined up to replace them or why home State Democratic Senators were not consulted in advance. There is no explanation for why there are now 22 out of the 93 districts with acting or interim U.S. attorneys instead of Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys.

I look at this in light of my own experience. I am very proud of the fact I was a prosecutor. The only thing in my personal office that has my name on it is a plaque from my prosecutor's office presented to me by the police when I left office, and it also has my shield, my badge as a prosecutor. I used to instill in the police and those prosecutors who worked for me: You don't take sides. Nobody is a Democrat or a Republican when crimes are committed. We don't take sides. If you keep emphasizing this and proving it by the way you carry out your office, then police work better, investigators work better, courts work better, the grand juries work better, because they know you are not playing politics. The American public, whoever is within the area the prosecutor represents, feels safer because they know you are not playing favorites. I lived my life that way as a prosecutor and I know many Republicans and Democratic Senators in this Chamber who are former prosecutors did the same.

I am worried that even successfully restoring the law is not going to undo the damage done to the American people's confidence in Federal law enforcement. For that, we need to get to the truth and real accountability. But then I think all of us in both parties now, and no matter who holds the White House 2 years from now, must renew a commitment to insulate Federal law enforcement officers from the corrupting influence of partisan politics and the corrosive influence of White House intrusion into law enforcement activities.

Mr. President, I will have more to say on this later. I see my friend from Arizona who has been waiting patiently, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senator from Pennsylvania said we are considering the nomination of Thomas Hardiman to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that has been designated a judicial emergency by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

In 2003, the Senate confirmed Judge Hardiman to the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania at the age of 37. Four years later, and now 41 years old, Judge Hardiman is before the Senate for confirmation to lifetime tenure on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Out of deference to the home state Senators, Senator Specter and Senator Casey, I support this nomination.

I only wish President Clinton's nominees, many of whom had a long record of accomplishment, had received the treatment we are according this nominee. Instead, highly qualified nominees, such as Elena Kagan, now Dean of the Harvard Law School, and Allen Snyder, who served as a clerk to Justice Rehnquist and was an experienced and respected litigator, were left without consideration for years. No questions were raised about their qualifications, as there have been for so many of President Bush's nominations. The fact is that during President Clinton's last two years, Senate Republicans refused to consider more than half of his appellate court nominees. They were just blocked, pocket filibustered with impunity.

Last Congress, we wasted enormous time and energy with controversial nominees. Now, a Democratic Congress has taken a better path and the high road.

Judge Hardiman has been nominated to a seat on the Third Circuit after serving as a Federal district court judge for four years. Before arriving on the bench, Judge Hardiman was a lawyer in private practice, where he worked for 13 years. In 1990, Judge Hardiman began his legal career as an Associate at the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in Washington, DC. From 1992 to 2003, he engaged in the private practice of law in Pittsburgh, PA, first as a partner at the law firm of Titus & Cindrich--now Titus & McConomy, LLP--and later as a partner at Reed Smith, where he specialized in real estate, contracts, securities, and constitutional law.

Judge Hardiman graduated from the University of Notre Dame in 1987, and received his law degree from my alma mater the Georgetown University Law

Center, in 1990, where he served on the Georgetown Law Journal as a Notes and Comments Editor.

I thank both home State Senators for their support of this nominee. I know Senator Specter, who has been a strong advocate for Judge Hardiman on the Committee, will welcome his confirmation. I also thank Senator Casey for his support, and for considering and approving this nominee so quickly after taking office.

With this confirmation, the Senate continues to make significant progress in this Congress on nominations for lifetime appointments to the Federal bench. We continue to put the lie to the alarmist rhetoric of some on the other side of the aisle by proceeding promptly and efficiently.

This session of Congress, the Senate has already confirmed 10 judicial nominations, including the nomination of Norman Randy Smith to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. And now the Senate stands poised to confirm a Second Circuit court nomination and will likely have confirmed 13 judges by the end of the day.

The treatment of President Bush's judicial nominees in a Democratic Congress stands in stark contrast to the fate of many of President Clinton's nominees, who were blocked and delayed by the Republican majority. In the 1996 session, a Republican-controlled Senate confirmed only 17 of President Clinton's nominees--this year, we have already reported 15 nominees out of committee in just 3 months. In 1996, not a single judge was confirmed to the circuit courts--not one. This nomination is already the second confirmed this year. In all, more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees were defeated in Senate committees through pocket filibusters and practices that Republicans then abandoned as soon as there was a Republican in the White House.

Regrettably, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts lists 50 judicial vacancies, yet the President has sent us only 20 nominations for these vacancies. Thirty of these vacancies-more than half-have no nominee. Of the 22 vacancies deemed by the Administrative Office to be judicial emergencies, the President has yet to send us nominees for 16 of them. That means more than two-thirds of the judicial emergency vacancies are without a nominee.

I would rather see us work together in the selection of nominees so that we can confirm judges rather than spend time fighting about them.

I congratulate Judge Hardiman, and his family, on his confirmation today.

We yield back all of our time.

Mr. President, I am pleased the Judiciary Committee approved and the Senate is considering S. 655, the American National Red Cross Governance Modernization Act of 2007. I thank my colleagues, Senator Grassley and Senator Kennedy, for their hard work on this issue and for introducing this important bill.

Since its founding by Clara Barton in 1881, the American Red Cross has provided crucial relief services to those affected by famine, floods, and natural and manmade disasters. Last year alone, the American Red Cross responded to approximately 75,000 disasters with the help of more than 1 million volunteers and 35,000 employees. As a key participant in the U.S. disaster relief plan, the American Red Cross is charged with helping the United States prevent, prepare and respond to national emergencies. Over the past several years, however, the American Red Cross has been strained by disasters of an unparalleled scope: the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the December 2004 Asian tsunami, and the 2005 hurricane season that included the enormously destructive Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. These events all challenged the Red Cross's ability to respond to disasters quickly and effectively.

In order to improve its disaster relief services, the American Red Cross's Board of Governors unanimously voted to accept recommendations given by an independent advisory board, which examined the American Red Cross's governance structure and practices. S. 655 reflects these recommendations and would improve the American Red Cross's governance structure by centralizing and reorganizing its infrastructure. Some notable enhancements include reducing its board size from 50 members to 20 in order to facilitate emergency action, giving the board all the powers in governing and managing the American Red Cross, and establishing a Presidential Advisory Council composed of 8 to 10 principal officers of the executive departments and senior officers of the Armed Forces to provide governmental input and support. Additionally, the modernized charter would enhance congressional oversight and transparency by creating an ombudsman who would provide an annual report to Congress articulating any concerns of volunteers, employees, donors, clients and the public.

According to the American Red Cross's end of the year report, Hurricane Katrina created a record of 1.4 million families, or around 4 million people, who needed emergency assistance such as food, clothing, and other necessities. My wife Marcelle was one of hundreds of thousands of volunteers dedicated to providing these essential relief services to victims of Katrina. No one knows when the next disaster will strike. Congress must do everything in our power to ensure that the American Red Cross can continue and improve upon the essential humanitarian work on which the United States and the world relies. I commend the Red Cross for taking important action to reform itself, and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Kohl, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Competition Policy, by cosponsoring once again the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels, NOPEC, Act. I thank Senator Kohl for his leadership on this important issue, and Senators Specter, Grassley, Feingold, Snowe, Schumer, Durbin, Boxer and Coburn the other cosponsors, for their continued support of this critically important effort.

The collusive behavior of certain oil producing nations has artificially--and drastically reduced the supply and inflated the price of fuel. Put simply, the behavior of these oil cartels, which would be illegal under antitrust laws, grievously harms American consumers and businesses.

We have introduced this measure in each of the last four Congresses. We introduce it again today, in our never-ending effort to make OPEC accountable for its anticompetitive behavior by allowing the Justice Department to crack down on illegal price manipulation by oil cartels.

This bill will allow the Federal Government to take legal action against any foreign state, including members of OPEC, for price fixing and artificially limiting the amount of available oil. While OPEC actions remain protected from antitrust enforcement, the ability of the governments involved to wreak havoc on the American economy will remain unchecked.

When the President took office, Americans could fill their cars, heat their homes, and run their businesses on gasoline that cost $1.45 a gallon. Fuel prices have skyrocketed since then. Prices will at times fall, but because fuel prices are not properly subject to competition oversight and enforcement, the American consumer will only benefit from lower prices when it serves some other purpose of the cartel and foreign governments.

President Bush has said he is concerned about gasoline costs and has pledged that the government would keep a close watch on unacceptable profiteering. It is time for the President to join us in supporting this legislation.

Our antitrust laws have been called the ``Magna Carta of free enterprise.'' If OPEC were simply a foreign business engaged in this type of behavior, it would already be subject to them. It is wrong to let OPEC producers off the hook just because their anticompetitive practices come with the seal of approval of national governments. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to say ``No'' to OPEC.