Floor Statements

Mr. President, I understand that amendment No. 2 is at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Mark Pryor to offer an amendment to the ethics bill, the Effective Prosecutions Act of 2007. Our amendment would strengthen the tools available to Federal prosecutors in combating public corruption. It gives investigators and prosecutors the statutory rules and resources they need to assure that corruption is detected and prosecuted.

In November, voters sent a strong message that they were tired of the culture of corruption. From war profiteers and corrupt officials in Iraq to convicted administration officials, to influence-peddling lobbyists and, regrettably, even Members of Congress, too many supposed public servants are serving their own interests rather than the public interests.

Actually, the American people staged an intervention and made it clear they would not stand for it any longer, and they expect Congress to take action. We need to restore the people's trust by acting to clean up the people's government.

The Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act will help to restore the people's trust. Similar legislation passed the Senate last year, but stalled in the House. This is a vital first step.

But the most serious corruption cannot be prevented only by changing our own rules. Bribery and extortion are committed by people who are assuming they will not get caught. These offenses are very difficult to detect and even harder to prove. But because they attack our democracy itself, they have to be found out and punished. We can send a signal we don't believe in corruption, that we want it punished.

I was pleased to join Senator Pryor last week to introduce the Effective Corruption Prosecutions Act of 2007, and I hope that all Senators will support us and incorporate this important bill into the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act. Our legislation gives investigators and prosecutors the tools and resources they need to go after public corruption.

Senator Pryor is a former attorney general. He understands, as I do, as I am a former prosecutor, the need for such legislation.

First, it would extend the statute of limitations for the most serious public corruption offenses, extending it from 5 years to 8 years for bribery, deprivation of honest services, and extortion by public officials.

The reason this is important is these public corruption cases are among the most difficult and time consuming to investigate, before you even bring a charge. They often require use of informants and electronic monitoring, as well as review of extensive financial and electronic records, techniques which take time to develop and implement. Once you bring a charge, the statute of limitations tolls. You do not want it to run out before you can bring the charge.

Bank fraud, arson, and passport fraud, among other offenses, all have 10-year statutes of limitations. Since public corruption offenses are so important to our democracy and these cases are so difficult to investigate and prove, a more modest extended statute of limitations for these offenses is a reasonable step to help our corruption investigators and prosecutors do their jobs. Corrupt officials should not be able to get away with ill-gotten gains simply because they outwait the investigators.

This legislation also facilitates the investigation and prosecution of an important offense known as Federal program bribery, Title 18, United States Code, section 666. Federal program bribery is the key Federal statute for prosecuting bribery involving State and local officials, as well as officials of the many organizations that receive substantial Federal money. This legislation would allow agents and prosecutors investigating this important offense to request authority to conduct wiretaps and to use Federal program bribery as a basis for a racketeering charge.

Wiretaps, when appropriately requested and authorized, are an important method for agents and prosecutors to gain evidence of corrupt activities, which can otherwise be next to impossible to prove without an informant. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, RICO, statute is also an important tool which helps prosecutors target organized crime and corruption.

Agents and prosecutors may currently request authority to conduct wiretaps to investigate many serious offenses, including bribery of Federal officials and even sports bribery, and may predicate RICO charges on these offenses, as well. It is only reasonable that these important tools also be available for investigating the similar and equally important offense of Federal program bribery.

Lastly, the Effective Corruption Prosecutions Act authorizes $25 million in additional Federal funds over each of the next four years to give Federal investigators and prosecutors needed resources to go after public corruption. Last month, FBI Director Mueller in written testimony to the Judiciary Committee called public corruption the FBI's top criminal investigative priority. However, a September 2005 Report by Department of Justice Inspector General Fine found that, from 2000 to 2004, there was an overall reduction in public corruption matters handled by the FBI. The report also found declines in resources dedicated to investigating public corruption, in corruption cases initiated, and in cases forwarded to U.S. attorneys' offices.

I am heartened by Director Mueller's assertion that there has recently been an increase in the number of agents investigating public corruption cases and the number of cases investigated, but I remain concerned by the inspector general's findings. I am concerned because the FBI in recent years has diverted resources away from criminal law priorities, including corruption, into counterterrorism. The FBI may need to divert further resources to cover the growing costs of Sentinel, their data management system. The Department of Justice has similarly diverted resources, particularly from United States Attorney's Offices.

Additional funding is important to compensate for this diversion of resources and to ensure that corruption offenses are aggressively pursued. This legislation will give the FBI, the U.S. attorneys' offices, and the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice new resources to hire additional public corruption investigators and prosecutors. They can finally have the manpower they need to track down and make these difficult cases, and to root out corruption.

These may sound like dry nuts-and-bolts measures, but what we are trying to figure out is what will actually allow us to investigate and prosecute the kinds of crimes that undermine our democracy.

If we are serious about addressing the egregious misconduct that we have recently witnessed, Congress must enact meaningful legislation to give investigators and prosecutors the resources they need to enforce our public corruption laws. I strongly urge Congress to pass this important amendment as a major step to restoring the public's trust in their government.

Certainly.

Mr. President, if I might answer that, last month the FBI directed written testimony to the Judiciary Committee. When GAO looked at it, the Department of Justice Inspector General found the numbers had gone way down partly because some of the resources had been converted to other matters. Regarding financial resources, as the distinguished Senator certainly knows, as he is on the Committee on Appropriations, enormous amounts of money were diverted to the very difficult setup of the computer system, the central system, and the FBI. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars literally went down the drain, and they have had to start all over.

I understand from Director Mueller's assertion that there has been an increased number of agents investigating public corruption cases, but it also appears that the resources have not been there.

If they don't want it, send it back to the Treasury. What I am concerned about, I say to my friend from Utah, and he is my friend, I recall in prosecutor days when legislative bodies would say, Boy, we are going to cut down on crime, we are going to give more crimes increased penalties; that will stop crime. And I said, Well, are you going to give us the resources to catch the people? No, we don't have money for that, but we will double the penalty.

The fact is, if somebody commits a crime, they figure they won't get caught. On some of these sophisticated bribery cases, and I include influence-peddling cases, they think if they can wait out the short statute of limitations, the 5-year statute of limitations, they can get away with it. We will at least increase that to 8 years. It should be out there somewhere near sports bribery, which I believe is 10 years.

The money will still be appropriated. Simply authorizing does not appropriate money. I don't want to be in a position where the Committee on Appropriations or somebody says we are not authorized. The distinguished Senator could easily say ``zero.'' I don't want them to say it is a great idea but they cannot authorize it.

We just agreed to an amendment that makes it a crime that already exists and makes it a misdemeanor. The Senator from Utah supports that. This is for prevention of crimes and to make sure they can be prosecuted. They are not being prosecuted.

The Senator mentions the Jack Abramoff case. We know that is ongoing, and there were lots of people who hoped they could wait out the statute of limitations on that bad boy. Under this, they will not.

I suggest we make these retroactive. I am suggesting we need enough time to investigate. And the FBI has had to divert so much money--first the hundreds of millions lost because they screwed up on the computer system, and they have had to divert a lot more from it. If they want to come up here and tell us they don't need this, fine. I haven't heard that from the Department of Justice at all. I have heard from the Inspector General that these investigations have suddenly gone way down in the last 4 years. Maybe there has been a great new wave of morality in this country and we have only seen the most egregious cases. I believe in the redemption of everyone, but I am not sure it happens all at once.

This is not just the Congress; we are talking about the ability

to go after State officials, for example, who are diverting public money. We are talking about a group that receives Federal funds and uses bribery to get it, going after or diverting it when they do. This is not just naming 535 Members of Congress but goes further than that.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I join Senator Salazar in introducing a bill to include Cesar E. Chavez among the names of the great civil rights leaders we honor in the title of last year's Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, ``VRARA''. I supported taking this action last year during the Senate Judiciary Committee's consideration of the VRARA when I offered an amendment on behalf of Senator Salazar to add the Hispanic civil rights leader to those for whom the law is named. As Senator Salazar reminded us, Cesar Chavez is an American hero who sacrificed his life to empower the most vulnerable in America. Like Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King, for whom the VRARA is named, he believed strongly in the right to vote as a cornerstone of American democracy. I offered the amendment in the Judiciary Committee and it was adopted without dissent.

In order not to complicate final passage of the Voting Rights Act, the Senate proceeded to adopt the House-passed bill without amendment so that it could be signed into law without having to be reconsidered by the House. At that time, I committed to work with Senator Salazar to conform the law to include recognition of the contribution to our civil rights, voting rights and American society by Cesar Chavez.

Cesar Chavez's name should be added to the law as important recognition of the broad landscape of political inclusion made possible by the Voting Rights Act. This bill would not alter the bill's vital remedies for continuing discrimination in voting, but is overdue recognition of the importance of the Voting Rights Act to Hispanic- Americans. Prior to the VRA, Hispanics, like minorities of all races, faced major barriers to participation in the political process, through the use of such devices as poll taxes, exclusionary primaries, intimidation by voting officials, language barriers, and systematic vote dilution.

I urge the Senate quickly to take up and pass this measure as we convene the new Congress and commit ourselves again to ensuring that the great promises of the 14th and 15th amendments are kept for all Americans and that the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act is fully implemented to protect the rights of all Americans.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with Senators Feingold, Sununu and others to introduce the Federal Agency Data Mining Reporting Act of 2007. This important privacy legislation would begin to restore key checks and balances by requiring Federal agencies to report to Congress on their datamining programs and activities. We joined together to introduce a similar bill last Congress. Regrettably, it received no attention. This year, I intend to make sure that we do a better job in considering Americans' privacy, checks and balances, and the proper balance to protect Americans' privacy rights while fighting smarter and more effectively against security threats.

In recent years, the Federal Government's use of data mining technology has exploded. According to a May 2004 report by the General Accounting Office, there are at least 199 different government data mining programs operating or planned throughout the Federal Government, with at least 52 different Federal agencies currently using data mining technology. And, more and more, these data mining programs are being used with little or no notice to ordinary citizens, or to Congress.

Advances in technologies make data banks and data mining more powerful and more useful than at any other time in our history. These can be useful tools in our national security arsenal, but we should use them appropriately so that they can be most effective. A mistake can cost Americans their jobs and wreak havoc in their lives and reputations that can take years to repair. Without adequate safeguards, oversight and checks and balances, these powerful technologies also become an invitation to government abuse. The government must take steps to ensure that it is properly using this technology. Too often, government data mining programs lack adequate safeguards to protect the privacy rights and civil liberties of ordinary Americans, whose data is collected and analyzed by these programs. Without these safeguards, government data mining programs are prone to produce inaccurate results and are ripe for abuse, error and unintended consequences.

This legislation takes an important first step in addressing these concerns by pulling back the curtain on how this Administration is using this technology. It does not by its terms prohibit the use of this technology, but rather provides an oversight mechanism to begin to ensure it is being used appropriately and effectively. This bill would require Federal agencies to report to Congress about its data mining programs. The legislation provides a much-needed check on federal agencies to disclose the steps that they are taking to protect the privacy and due process rights of American citizens when they use these programs.

We need checks and balances to keep government data bases from being misused against the American people. That is what the Constitution and our laws should provide. We in Congress must make sure that when our government uses technology to detect and deter illegal activity that it does so in a manner that also protects our most basic rights and liberties. This bill advances this important goal, and I urge all Senators to support this important privacy legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with Senators Feingold, Sununu and others to introduce the Federal Agency Data Mining Reporting Act of 2007. This important privacy legislation would begin to restore key checks and balances by requiring Federal agencies to report to Congress on their datamining programs and activities. We joined together to introduce a similar bill last Congress. Regrettably, it received no attention. This year, I intend to make sure that we do a better job in considering Americans' privacy, checks and balances, and the proper balance to protect Americans' privacy rights while fighting smarter and more effectively against security threats.

In recent years, the Federal Government's use of data mining technology has exploded. According to a May 2004 report by the General Accounting Office, there are at least 199 different government data mining programs operating or planned throughout the Federal Government, with at least 52 different Federal agencies currently using data mining technology. And, more and more, these data mining programs are being used with little or no notice to ordinary citizens, or to Congress.

Advances in technologies make data banks and data mining more powerful and more useful than at any other time in our history. These can be useful tools in our national security arsenal, but we should use them appropriately so that they can be most effective. A mistake can cost Americans their jobs and wreak havoc in their lives and reputations that can take years to repair. Without adequate safeguards, oversight and checks and balances, these powerful technologies also become an invitation to government abuse. The government must take steps to ensure that it is properly using this technology. Too often, government data mining programs lack adequate safeguards to protect the privacy rights and civil liberties of ordinary Americans, whose data is collected and analyzed by these programs. Without these safeguards, government data mining programs are prone to produce inaccurate results and are ripe for abuse, error and unintended consequences.

This legislation takes an important first step in addressing these concerns by pulling back the curtain on how this Administration is using this technology. It does not by its terms prohibit the use of this technology, but rather provides an oversight mechanism to begin to ensure it is being used appropriately and effectively. This bill would require Federal agencies to report to Congress about its data mining programs. The legislation provides a much-needed check on federal agencies to disclose the steps that they are taking to protect the privacy and due process rights of American citizens when they use these programs.

We need checks and balances to keep government data bases from being misused against the American people. That is what the Constitution and our laws should provide. We in Congress must make sure that when our government uses technology to detect and deter illegal activity that it does so in a manner that also protects our most basic rights and liberties. This bill advances this important goal, and I urge all Senators to support this important privacy legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday January 10, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in 328a, Senate Russell Office Building. The purpose of this committee hearing will be to discuss agriculture and rural America's role in enhancing national energy security.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 10, 2007, at 2 p.m., in closed session to receive a briefing regarding U.S. military action in Somalia.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Finance will meet on Wednesday, January 10, 2007, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Tax Incentives for Businesses in Response to a Minimum Wage Increase''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 10, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Iraq.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 at 10 a.m. in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Balancing Privacy and Security: The Privacy Implications of Government Data Mining Programs'' on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness List: The Honorable Robert Barr, Chief Executive Officer, Liberty Strategies, LLC, Atlanta, GA; James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., Heritage Foundation, Assistant Director, Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, Senior Research Fellow, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, Washington, DC; Mr. Jim Harper, Director of Information Policy Studies, CATO Institute, Washington, DC; Ms. Leslie Harris, Executive Director, Center for

Democracy and Technology, Washington, DC; Mr. Kim A. Taipale, Founder and Executive Director, Center for Advanced Studies in Science and Technology Policy, New York, NY.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 10, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a business meeting.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for a few minutes.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, one of the most amazing citizens of our remarkable State of Vermont is Antonio Pomerleau. Most people know him as Tony Pomerleau. My wife Marcelle and our children know him simply as Uncle Tony.

Tony and his wife Rita have been among the most generous contributors to the well-being of families in Vermont of anyone I know, and he did not come from a wealthy background. His parents, my wife's grandparents, came as immigrants to the United States from the Province of Quebec in Canada. Nonetheless, he and his wife Rita raised a family of 10 and also faced the tragedy of losing two beautiful daughters. Throughout it all, he has retained his position as a leading citizen of our State but even more so as an example to all of us.

Shortly before Christmas, Tony was named Vermonter of the year by our State's largest newspaper. With pride, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial about our Uncle Tony be printed in the Record so everyone throughout our great country can know about him.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Reid for expediting passage of legislation I introduced today with him and Senators Specter, Reid, Feinstein, and Cornyn to authorize cost-of-living adjustments for the salaries of United States Justices and judges for fiscal year 2007. This is a step I supported taking--and that we should have taken--in the last Congress. I am glad that a holdup on the Republican side that prevented us from passing this last week was resolved so that we could move forward in a unanimous and bipartisan way to take care of this unfinished business in the Senate. I hope that the House of Representatives will join us in making cost-of-living increase for judges an early item of business.

The legislation we pass today is a modest step towards addressing the issues raised by Chief Justice Roberts in his ``Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary.'' I have commended the Chief Justice for speaking out on behalf of the judiciary and for seeking to strengthen the independence of the judicial branch. Judicial independence is critical for preserving our system of government and protecting the rights of all Americans.

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 rejected by Congress. In 1981, Congress enacted section 140 of Public Law 97-92, mandating specific congressional action to give COLAs to judges. With the end of the last Congress, however, the continuing resolutions providing funding failed to suspend section 140, thus ensuring that no COLA would be provided for Federal judges during the current fiscal year, unless other action is taken. Four years ago, the last time Congress missed making a scheduled cost-of-living adjustment for the judiciary, I sponsored remedial legislation that was enacted. I have done so, again, in the hope that Congress will correct this slight.

The bipartisan legislation we pass today provides for a COLA for Federal judges consistent with the law and with fairness. I have worked hard as ranking member of the Judiciary Committee over the last 4 years to ensure the independence of the judiciary.

Some of us have tried over the years to improve the compensation of judges. I have sponsored bills for general increases in judicial compensation. One such measure did pass the Senate a few years ago only to be stalled by the Republican House leadership. Senator Feinstein was the lead sponsor of such a bill last Congress.

I intend to do what I can to convince Congress to fairly evaluate this issue and the Chief Justice's arguments, so that we can see what solutions may be possible. I hope Congress and the President will reconsider a broader judicial compensation measure this year to adjust their salaries. We have taken a first step now by taking up and passing this bill allowing for the annual judicial COLA that was not enacted last year.

Mr. President, today I wish to tell my colleagues in the Senate about a family-owned telephone business in Vermont that has once again led the industry in customer service and technological advances. Waitsfield and Champlain Valley Telecom has successfully delivered high-speed broadband Internet service capability by way of Digital Subscriber Line, DSL, technology to every single one of its customers something most of its competitors have found difficult, if not impossible, to do.

The beautiful rural and mountainous landscape that makes Vermont such a wonderful place to live has proven to be a stubborn barrier in delivering broadband access to every Vermonter. Moreover, as one of the country's most rural States, Vermont struggles to implement large broadband infrastructure investments that reach relatively small population densities. Yet in the Mad River Valley--where Mother Nature has deposited plenty of these beautiful yet stubborn barriers and people settled where they wanted to and not where the roads told them to--Waitsfield and Champlain Valley Telecom found a way to ensure that their customers have an access ramp to the information super highway.

By making this significant investment in their own network, Waitsfield and Champlain Valley Telecom has invested in the economic vitality of every household it serves. Broadband access is a necessity for the company looking to move to Vermont, for the student writing a research paper, or for the family doing research on an upcoming vacation. So much of our country's economy depends upon high-speed Internet access, and making this access available to every American will require more companies willing to follow the lead of Vermont's own Waitsfield and Champlain Valley Telecom.

Waitsfield and Champlain Valley Telecom is a growing company, but it remains independently owned and operated by the Haskin family, under the leadership of Gregg Haskin. My wife Marcelle and I are proud to call the Haskins close friends, and we are even prouder of the deep commitment they have to their community. We wish them continued success, and I hope that my friends in the Senate will take this story back to their home States and point to this company's model as a key factor toward bridging the digital divide.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Pryor to introduce the ``Effective Corruption Prosecutions Act of 2007,'' a bill to strengthen the tools available to Federal prosecutors in combating public corruption. This bill gives investigators and prosecutors the statutory tools and the resources they need to ensure that serious and insidious public corruption is detected and punished.

In November, voters sent a strong message that they were tired of the culture of corruption. From war profiteers and corrupt officials in Iraq to convicted Administration officials to influence-peddling lobbyists and, regrettably, even Members of Congress, too many supposed public servants were serving their own interests, rather than the public interest. The American people staged an intervention and made it clear that they would not stand for it any longer. They expect the Congress to take action. We need to restore the people's trust by acting to clean up the people's government.

The Senate's new leadership is introducing important lobbying reform and ethics legislation. Similar legislation passed the Senate last year, but stalled in the House. This is a vital first step.

But the most serious corruption cannot be prevented only by changing our own rules. Bribery and extortion are committed by people bent on getting around the rules and banking that they won't get caught. These offenses are very difficult to detect and even harder to prove. Because they attack the core of our democracy, these offenses must

be found out and punished. Congress must send a signal that it will not tolerate this corruption by providing better tools for federal prosecutors to combat it. This bill will do exactly that.

First, the bill extends the statute of limitations for the most serious public corruption offenses. Specifically, it extends the statute of limitations from five years to eight years for bribery, deprivation of honest services, and extortion by a public official. This is an important step because public corruption cases are among the most difficult and time-consuming cases to investigate and prosecute. They often require use of informants and electronic monitoring, as well as review of extensive financial and electronic records, techniques which take time to develop and implement.

Bank fraud, arson, and passport fraud, among other offenses, all have 10-year statutes of limitations. Since public corruption offenses are so important to our democracy and these cases are so difficult to investigate and prove, a more modest extended statute of limitations for these offenses is a reasonable step to help our corruption investigators and prosecutors do their jobs. Corrupt officials should not be able to get away with their ill gotten gains just by waiting out the investigators.

This bill also facilitates the investigation and prosecution of an important offense known as Federal program bribery, Title 18, United States Code, section 666. Federal program bribery is the key Federal statute for prosecuting bribery involving state and local officials, as well as officials of the many organizations that receive substantial Federal money. This bill would allow agents and prosecutors investigating this important offense to request authority to conduct wiretaps and to use Federal program bribery as a basis for a racketeering charge.

Wiretaps, when appropriately requested and authorized, are an important method for agents and prosecutors to gain evidence of corrupt activities, which can otherwise be next to impossible to prove without an informant. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute is also an important tool which helps prosecutors target organized crime and corruption.

Agents and prosecutors may currently request authority to conduct wiretaps to investigate many serious offenses, including bribery of federal officials and even sports bribery, and may predicate RICO charges on these offenses, as well. It is only reasonable that these important tools also be available for investigating the similar and equally important offense of federal program bribery.

Lastly, my bill authorizes $25 million in additional Federal funds over each of the next four years to give federal investigators and prosecutors needed resources to go after public corruption. Last month, FBI Director Mueller in written testimony to the Judiciary Committee called public corruption the FBI's top criminal investigative priority. However, a September 2005 Report by Department of Justice Inspector General Fine found that, from 2000 to 2004, there was an overall reduction in public corruption matters handled by the FBI. The report also found declines in resources dedicated to investigating public corruption, in corruption cases initiated, and in cases forwarded to US Attorney's Offices.

I am heartened by Director Mueller's assertion that there has recently been an increase in the number of agents investigating public corruption cases and the number of cases investigated, but I remain concerned by the Inspector General's findings. I am concerned because the FBI in recent years has diverted resources away from criminal law priorities, including corruption, into counterterrorism. The FBI may need to divert further resources to cover the growing costs of Sentinel, their data management system. The Department of Justice has similarly diverted resources, particularly from United States Attorney's Offices.

Additional funding is important to compensate for this diversion of resources and to ensure that corruption offenses are aggressively pursued. My bill will give the FBI, the United States Attorney's Offices, and the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice new resources to hire additional public corruption investigators and prosecutors. They can finally have the manpower they need to track down and make these difficult cases, and to root out the corruption.

If we are serious about addressing the egregious misconduct that we have recently witnessed, Congress must enact meaningful legislation to give investigators and prosecutors the resources they need to enforce our public corruption laws. I strongly urge Congress to do more to restore the public's trust in their government.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill that creates criminal penalties for war profiteers and cheats who would exploit taxpayer-funded efforts in Iraq and elsewhere around the world. Last year, despite the mounting evidence of widespread contractor fraud and abuse in Iraq, the Republican-controlled Senate would not act on it. Instead, the Congress took a terrible misstep in seeking to end the work of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. I have been proposing versions of this bill

since 2003, when it did pass the Senate. Unfortunately, this crucial provision was stripped out of the final version of a bill by a Republican-controlled conference committee.

There is growing evidence of widespread contractor fraud in Iraq, yet prosecuting criminal cases against these war profiteers is difficult under current law. We must crack down on this rampant fraud and abuse that squanders American taxpayers' dollars and jeopardizes the safety of our troops abroad. That is why I renew my efforts for accountability and action with the introduction of the War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007. I am pleased to join with Senators Bingaman, Kerry, Harkin, Rockefeller, Dorgan, Wyden, Schumer, Cantwell, Bill Nelson, Clinton, Lautenberg and Menendez to introduce this legislation.

Congress has sent billions upon billions of dollars to Iraq with too little accountability and too few financial controls. More than $50 billion of this money has gone to private contractors hired to guard bases, drive trucks, feed and shelter the troops and rebuild the country. This is more than the annual budget of the Department of Homeland Security.

Instead of results from these companies, we are seeing penalties levied for allegations of fraud and abuse. At least 10 companies with billions of dollars in U.S. contracts for Iraq reconstruction have paid more than $300 million in penalties since 2000, to resolve allegations of bid rigging, fraud, delivery of faulty military parts and environmental damage. Seven other companies with Iraq reconstruction contracts have agreed to pay financial penalties without admitting wrongdoing.

In 2005, Halliburton took in approximately $3.6 billion from contracts to serve U.S. troops and rebuild the oil industry in Iraq. Halliburton executives say that the company received about $1 billion a month for Iraq work in 2006. In addition, last month, we learned of new plans to spend hundreds of millions more to create jobs in Iraq.

Last year, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction found that millions of U.S. taxpayer funds appropriated for Iraq reconstruction have been lost and diverted. Yet we continue to send more taxpayer funds to Iraq, without accountability.

Too much of this money is unaccounted for, and many of the facilities and services that these funds were supposed to pay for are still nonexistent. We in Congress must ask--where did all the money go? We need to press for more accountability over the use and abuse of billions of taxpayers' dollars sent as development aid to Iraq, not less.

A new law to combat war profiteering in Iraq and elsewhere is sorely needed and long overdue. Although there are anti-fraud laws to protect against the waste of U.S. tax dollars at home, no law expressly prohibits war profiteering or expressly confers jurisdiction on U.S. federal courts to hear fraud cases involving war profiteering committed overseas.

The bill I introduced today would criminalize ``war profiteering''-- overcharging taxpayers in order to defraud and to profit excessively from a war, military action, or reconstruction efforts. It would also prohibit any fraud against the United States involving a contract for the provision of goods or services in connection with a war, military action, or for relief or reconstruction activities. This new crime would be a felony, subject to criminal penalties of up to 20 years in prison and fines of up to $1 million, or twice the illegal gross profits of the crime.

The bill also prohibits false statements connected with the provision of goods or services in connection with a war or reconstruction effort. This crime would also be a felony, subject to criminal penalties of up to 10 years in prison and fines of up to $1 million, or twice the illegal gross profits of the crime.

The measure also addresses weakness in the existing laws used to combat war profiteering, by providing clear authority for the Government to seek criminal penalties and to recover excessive profits for war profiteering overseas. These are strong and focused sanctions that are narrowly tailored to punish and deter fraud or excessive profiteering in contracts, both at home and abroad.

The message sent by this bill is clear--any act to exploit the crisis situation in Iraq or elsewhere overseas for exorbitant gain is unacceptable, reprehensible, and criminal. Such deceit demeans and exploits the sacrifices that our military personnel are making in Iraq and Afghanistan, and around the world. This bill also builds on a strong legacy of historical efforts to stem war profiteering. Congress implemented excessive-profits taxes and contract renegotiation laws after both World Wars, and again after the Korean War. Advocating exactly such an approach, President Roosevelt once declared it our duty to ensure that ``a few do not gain from the sacrifices of the many.''

Our Government cannot in good faith ask its people to sacrifice for reconstruction efforts that allow some to profit unfairly. When U.S. taxpayers have been called upon to bear the burden of reconstruction contracts--where contracts are awarded in a system that offers little competition and even less accountability--concerns about wartime profiteering are a grave matter.

Combating war profiteering is not a Democratic issue, or a Republican issue. Rather, it is a cause that all Americans can support. When I first introduced this bill in 2003, it came to be cosponsored by 21 Senators. The Senate Appropriations Committee also unanimously accepted these provisions during a Senate Appropriations Committee markup of the $87 billion appropriations bill for Iraq and Afghanistan for Fiscal Year 2004, and this provision passed the Senate. Passing bipartisan war profiteering prevention legislation was the right thing to do then, and it is the right thing to do now.

I am hopeful that in a new year, and with a new Congress, we can make a fresh start and forge a bipartisan partnership on this important issue that will result in passage of this bill. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President I will speak briefly. One of the things I am going to do today is join the distinguished Presiding Officer, Senator Salazar--in fact, I should note that this is the first time I have seen the distinguished Presiding Officer in the chair. He looks as though he was born to preside here, and he does it well. I am going to join him in introducing a bill to include Cesar Chavez among the names of the great civil rights leaders we honored in the title of last year's Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006.

When we were considering this legislation in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Salazar made a compelling argument why that name, an American hero's name, should be added to the bill: because he devoted and sacrificed his life to empower the most vulnerable in America, as did Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King.

Cesar Chavez's name should be added to the law as an important recognition of the broad landscape of political inclusion made possible by the Voting Rights Act. This bill would not alter the act's vital remedies to address continuing discrimination in voting, but rather it is overdue recognition of the importance of the Voting Rights Act to Hispanic-Americans.

I offered Senator Salazar's amendment in the Judiciary Committee. The moral weight of what he wanted to do was so compelling that in a committee often fractured, it passed unanimously. It was included. It was not included in the final bill because as we were nearing the ending time, we did not want to have to have the bill go back and forth to the other body again because we wanted to get it on the President's desk in time. I committed to the distinguished Senator from Colorado that I would join him again this year, and I say with virtual certainty that the Senate Judiciary Committee will move very rapidly with that issue this year. I have the commitment of the new chairman backing that up, as does he have mine. And so I urge the Senate to quickly take up and pass this measure as we convene the new Congress and commit ourselves once again to ensuring that the great promises of the 14th and 15th Amendments are kept for all Americans.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Mr. President, as this new Congress begins, we have a tremendous opportunity before us to enact fair, comprehensive immigration reform. It is time for bipartisan action. So I join with Senators from both sides of the aisle to call for comprehensive immigration reform, and I will work to enact it. We have to put aside the mean-spiritedness and shortsighted policies driven by fear and recognize the dignity of those whose work contributes to reinvigorating America. Consistent with our heritage as a nation of immigrants, we need to bring people out of the shadows. My maternal grandparents were immigrants to this country. My wife's parents came as immigrants to this country. We are a nation of immigrants. And those of us who are here now should not think that somehow we got here differently, and that we should close the doors to the rest. That is not the American way.

Through comprehensive immigration reform, we can increase the opportunities for American businesses to obtain the workers they need while ensuring that priority is given to willing workers already in this country, from dairy farms in Vermont to multinational corporations. We have been told of the plight of the American farmers from New York to California. We have seen the pictures of the piles of rotting fruit that have gone unharvested. We hear American technology companies lamenting lost opportunities and the loss of skilled innovators to other countries. Dairy farmers are yearning for more available legal workers in my own State of Vermont. But worse yet, others have watched families in their employ be torn apart through piecemeal, inconsistent, sometimes heavyhanded enforcement efforts. I have met some of those families. I have talked to people who were fifth, sixth, seventh generation Vermonters who say how unfair it is to see these good families torn apart by seemingly arbitrary immigration enforcement efforts. No American farmer, no business, should be put in the position of having to choose between obeying the law or losing their livelihood.

Where American workers can fill available jobs, of course they should be given priority. But where these jobs are available but unclaimed by American citizens, it makes no sense to deny willing foreign workers the opportunity to work. We can strike a balance if we work together.

We must streamline and reform our visa system for low-skilled workers so we can help reduce the crippling backlogs that affect American businesses. And we must increase the number of low-skilled work visas issued each year to keep up with the needs of our economy. We should enact stronger, consistent employer verification procedures. We should impose penalties for those employers who flout the law and exploit those who have no voice. We can do this by working together and enacting comprehensive reform.

Through comprehensive and smart reforms we can increase our security. Let us work to focus enforcement efforts and protect our citizens from those who seek to do us harm. Let us put an end to the enforcement conditions that end in too many needless deaths in the deserts of the Southwest, families--spouses and children--who die needlessly trying to seek the promise of America. We also have to take a smart approach in dealing with the millions of people already here, one that does not divide families and make instant criminals out of millions of people but rather honors our Nation's best traditions. When we enact reforms to bring the millions of undocumented people of this country out of the shadows, greater accountability will follow. When we provide incentives for undocumented people to enter a path to citizenship, we will encourage them to live up to our traditions of citizenship and civic responsibility. When we endow those who seek to better their lives and

the lives of their families with the tools to do so legally, we help instill in them a sense of belonging, of patriotism, of opportunity. Those who decry this aspect of immigration reform must carefully consider the alternative path. By driving more people underground, we foster a culture of lawlessness and mistrust.

We can't wall ourselves off from the world. A 700-mile fence on a 2,000-mile border is not the answer. Last fall, the Republican Congress rushed through a bill to build 700 miles of fencing and did so against the advice of the Department of Homeland Security. That fence bill was neither fair nor comprehensive. I share the disappointment of tens of millions of Americans who had hoped President Bush would have exercised his constitutional authority to veto that costly, cobbled-together and mean-spirited law. Instead, the President seemed to have abandoned his principles in signing the Secure Fence Act: legislation that will cost between $2 billion and $9 billion and fail to perform as advertised to seal our southern border. Scarring our southwestern landscape with a symbol of fear, pandering, and intolerance offends the great heritage of our Nation by sending the wrong message to our neighbors and to the world about American values. It was a pricey bumper sticker law passed to curry favor in certain quarters before the elections. Instead, by focusing on technology, innovation, and personnel rather than partisan politics and divisive walls, we can do a better job of securing our border.

The President has said many times that in order for the United States to achieve real security, we must have comprehensive immigration reform which must include a realistic solution to bring out of the shadows the millions of undocumented immigrants in this country and at the same time meet the pressing needs of employers who are looking for willing workers. In numerous statements, including a speech in Mission, TX, in August 2006, he recognized that without all components of comprehensive reform working together, immigration reform will not work.

So I will continue working to enact legislation to secure our borders and strengthen our economy and bring about a realistic solution for the millions of people who want to work and live legally in our country. I will continue to support fair and comprehensive immigration reform that will respect the dignity of those who seek to join mainstream American society and better their lives in the United States. Let's hope that common sense and bipartisanship will prevail and that the promises of America, those promises of America that encouraged my grandparents to come to this country and my wife's parents to come to this country, are still there. Let us not enact laws that are beneath the dignity of a great and noble and welcoming Nation. Let us pass legislation that reflects what is the best of America and reflects the America that is a diverse country made up of people of diverse backgrounds. We will be stronger and better for it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, might I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Michigan. He and I have been dear friends for years and years. I thank him for those words. I am also happy to see the gavel of the Armed Services Committee go into his hands.

Madam President, it is with great sadness that I rise today to bid a final goodbye to one of Vermont's most distinguished public servants. On Saturday, December 23, just before Christmas, former Senator Bob Stafford from Vermont passed away at the venerable age of 93. He leaves behind a tremendous legacy of which he and his family and fellow Vermonters and all Americans should be exceptionally proud. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Robert Stafford, an extraordinary Vermonter, and especially a very dear and close friend.

He will be greatly missed by me, my wife Marcelle, and by so many other Americans all across our country. We send our condolences to his wife Helen and his family.

Born in Rutland in 1913, Senator Stafford attended his hometown's public schools. He completed his undergraduate work at one of our Nation's finest undergraduate institutions, Middlebury College. He briefly attended the University of Michigan Law School but ultimately earned his law degree from Boston University School of Law in 1938.

Bob was a remarkable person not only because of his service as a statesman but also for his service in the military. He is a prime example of what has been so aptly named the ``greatest generation.''

Senator Stafford courageously stepped forward to serve our Nation during not one but two foreign wars. In 1942, he enlisted in the U.S. Navy and served on active duty from 1942 to 1946. Again, when the Korean war began, he served from 1951 to 1953 as an officer in the Navy. Bob later became the first commander of the Navy Reserve Center in Burlington, VT. The center later moved to White River Junction in 1995, and I was pleased to recommend to the Navy that the new facility be named the Robert T. Stafford Naval Reserve Center. They happily obliged. Throughout his life, Bob remained extremely proud of his Navy career. I still remember that beautiful day when we opened the new Naval Reserve facility named in honor of his leadership.

Indeed, the recently completed Lake Champlain Navy Memorial was dedicated in his honor by the unanimous recommendation of its founding committee, made up of Navy veterans, retirees, and reservists.

Bob Stafford was an absolute giant in Vermont politics. He spent almost 30 years representing our great State, first in the U.S. House of Representatives, and then in the U.S. Senate. Prior to his arrival in Washington in the early 1960s, he served his fellow Vermonters closer to home, holding a number of prominent State positions.

He served as Rutland County State's attorney and deputy State attorney general, and finally as our State attorney general. From 1957 to 1959, Bob Stafford held the post of Lieutenant Governor. In 1959, he went on to become Governor.

In 1960, Bob Stafford was elected to Vermont's sole seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. He won five successive reelections. In September of 1971, he resigned his House seat to accept an appointment to the U.S. Senate following the death of Senator Winston Prouty.

After he won a special election in January 1972, Bob proceeded to represent Vermont in the Senate during the next 17 years. I had the distinct privilege of serving with him during all but 2 of those years. He also had serving with him from the time he was Governor through the House and the U.S. Senate a most remarkable Chief of Staff, Neal Houston. He and Neal Houston were like brothers. They could almost complete each other's sentences. When I spoke to Neal and heard the sad news about Senator Stafford's passing, I knew he felt that he had lost a member of his own family.

When I first came to Washington as a young man in 1974, I was a 34- year-old junior Senator from Vermont. We didn't have any kind of orientation for new Senators at that time. Bob Stafford was an indispensable mentor to me. I will never forget the leadership and friendship he offered me during that challenging time.

Interestingly enough, Senator Stafford was sort of the epitome of a Vermont Republican in the proudest tradition. I was the only Democrat ever elected. He took me under his wing during those early years. He was enormously helpful to me, his younger, far less experienced junior colleague. I will never forget that he even allowed me the use of his office before I was assigned a space of my own, where we could interview people for positions in my office and where telephone calls could be answered. He brought me around and introduced me to both Republicans and Democrats and basically vouched for me.

But Bob and his wife Helen's kindness extended far beyond the confines of the Senate office buildings. Helen was kind enough even to offer to babysit our children when Marcelle and I were so new in town that we had nowhere to turn for childcare while we were house-hunting. This is a remarkable couple.

To this day, Marcelle and I hold enormous gratitude for the friendship the Staffords offered during our early years in Washington. That friendship has continued throughout the years, and we have many fond memories of visiting their home on Sugar Hill Road. Even after Bob left the Senate, we would drop by and visit. We had some most remarkable conversations--some political, some family, and after all of them I would leave with a smile on my face.

Bob was an extremely well liked member of the Republican Party. He served at one time in the Republican leadership, but he also formed many close friendships with Senators on the Democratic side. Always respectful, always polite, Bob Stafford consistently recognized the importance of moderation and compromise. He, better than most, knew how to form bipartisan alliances.

In his quiet and unassuming manner, Bob Stafford fought hard for the issues that mattered most to him. He believed passionately that higher education should be more accessible to all Americans, regardless of their socioeconomic status, and he was instrumental in creating the student loan program which today bears his name. The Stafford Student Loan Program has made higher education more accessible for millions of Americans, even for some who work in my office today. Bob was a champion of vocational education. Today the Stafford Technical Center, located in his hometown of Rutland, serves the needs of hundreds of students in Rutland County.

Bob showed tremendous leadership in blocking President Reagan's attempts to slash health and education funding. Thanks to Bob Stafford's hard work, programs for disabled Americans and legal aid were left largely intact during much of the 1980s when other programs were starkly scaled back. His chairmanship made sure they were protected.

Bob Stafford also played an important role in another issue of enormous relevance today, Federal emergency assistance. In 1988, President Reagan signed into law the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, a bill which provides the statutory authority for Federal disaster response activities pertaining to FEMA programs.

While his achievements in the areas of education and Federal disaster relief were certainly superb, I believe his most enduring legacy will be for the work he did in protecting the environment and public health. He helped

shape and strengthen some of our Nation's most critical environmental laws for over two decades.

As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee from 1981 to 1986, Bob Stafford was instrumental in persuading Congress to expand and strengthen the Superfund toxic waste cleanup law in the mid-1980s. It was in large part due to Robert Stafford's unwavering commitment to this bill in 1980 that the Superfund Act became law at all. As many of us know, this law has been indispensable in forcing industry polluters to contribute money to finance cleanup and restoration of contaminated wastesites.

Bob Stafford believed passionately in the Federal Government's commitment to improving the quality of our Nation's air. This was never more evident than in his steadfast work to uphold the Clean Air Act when it was under attack during the 1980s. He did not shirk from taking on his friend President Reagan as well as auto manufacturers and other industry groups in refusing to roll back this critical air pollution law.

In fact, I remember talking to him once. They were so anxious to get him to change and let these rollbacks go through that they invited him down to the White House, to spend some one-on-one time with President Reagan. The Reagan administration amazed many of their members afterward that Bob didn't back off at all. He came back and kept on protecting the environment.

I said to him: Bob, what happened when you went down there to talk with President Regan?

He said: Well, the President had notes of what he was supposed to say and he said it. Then he looked at me and he said: Bob, you're probably not going to give in, are you? Bob said: No, no, I'm not, Mr. President, but I certainly appreciate the time to be with you.

I said then: What did you talk about the rest of the time?

Oh, we talked about our kids, we talked about sports, we talked about a lot of other things. He said: I had a wonderful conversation with President Reagan. But he did not budge on the environment, something no Vermonter would do.

His concern about the contamination of our air was truly remarkable. The consistent and clear manner in which he spoke about the danger of ozone depletion, acid rain, and the release of greenhouse gases related to global warming, during a very difficult period, was a source of inspiration to so many of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. It certainly was an inspiration to me.

As EPW chairman, Senator Stafford also led the fight to improve the quality of our water. Working closely with Senator John Chafee and others on both sides of the aisle, his leadership was critical in reauthorizing the Clean Water Act in 1987. Bob cited the passage of this act as the culmination of one of the greatest bipartisan efforts in protecting our Nation's environment. It really was. Republicans and Democrats came together. It gave me enormous pride to see him appear 3 years ago before the Senate in celebrating the act's 30-year anniversary. Thanks to Bob's leadership during those difficult years of deregulation, our Nation was able to make great strides in reducing the levels of pollutants and contaminants in our water.

Even after he retired from Congress, he served Vermont in many ways. He was a member of the University of Vermont's School of Natural Resources Advisory Committee and attended the day-long hearings with his wife Helen up to just a few years ago. He also lectured at UVM, Norwich University, and Castleton State College. In 2003, his old alma mater, Middlebury College, honored both Bob and his wife Helen, also a Middlebury graduate, by inaugurating the Robert and Helen Stafford Professorship in Public Policy. Two people who had been together almost all their lives are together in this professorship.

Also in retirement, Bob continued to fight for clean air. In 1995, he joined forces with his friend and former colleague, Senator Edmund Muskie, in incorporating the Clean Air Trust, a nonprofit organization dedicated to upholding and enforcing clean air legislation.

He leaves so many impressive achievements for his lifelong work in public service. But outside these public accomplishments, Senator Stafford was also a man of many personal hobbies and interests. It kind of reflects who he is. On weekends, he liked to slip out of Washington with his wife Helen and enjoy time on his boat, a full Moon, cruising down the Chesapeake Bay. Marcelle and I were fortunate enough to join them on occasion. He loved the water. He loved everything about sailing. You can tell why the Navy holds him in such high regard back home.

He took flying lessons as a young man. He eventually got his pilot's license in the early sixties. In fact, he would pilot a leased Cessna back and forth between Washington and Vermont.

It was a mark of this unique Senator that he welcomed and helped the first Senator of the other party to be elected in Vermont. I will always remember and cherish the walks we took down the halls and the times we would sit and talk at lunch. People thought we were talking so much about politics. We were talking about Vermont. We were talking about whether the foliage season was going to start early or late, and we would make a determined judgment when it would be. Heck, we had not the foggiest idea but, boy, we had fun determining when it would start.

No Senator could have learned as much from his fellow Senator as I did, nor could a senior Senator be so patient and understanding with his junior. Throughout our time together, when I had been inclined to move impulsively, it would be Bob Stafford who would help me decide what was truly in the best interest of the country and Vermont. He was the most unflappable person I have ever known.

I remember flying to Vermont with him once on a commercial airline. The plane hit a tremendous amount of turbulence. We suddenly dropped thousands of feet. At least one person was airborne in the cabin, and things were flying around. I know my pulse raced ever so fast. When the pilot finally got control of the plane with a shuddering, banging maneuver, I sat there stunned. I had sweat soaking through my shirt. Bob simply folded his paper--which he never stopped reading--turned to me and in a quiet voice said: Patrick, just think if this plane had gone down. Tomorrow morning there would have been a long line outside the Governor's office. Everybody would be saying what a terrible tragedy that we have lost our Senators, but, Governor, I am willing to be appointed to either one of the seats. I found that I was not so frightened, and I was able to laugh until it hurt, and I did laugh.

Bob Stafford was a man who dedicated his entire adult life to public service because he deeply believed in the value of public service. And no matter where life took him, Bob stayed close to his Vermont roots. He never forgot the people he served. While many younger Vermonters and Americans may not know much about Bob Stafford, his public service and leadership are examples for all of us. Our country would do well to stop and take notice of his life and reflect on how we should all serve our Nation better with his bipartisan leadership style.

It is with tremendous sadness that I say goodbye to this truly distinguished American, more importantly to an exceptionally dear friend. To honor Robert Stafford's legacy, Senator Sanders and I, along with Congressman Peter Welch from Vermont, introduced a bill to rename the White Rocks National Recreation Area. This is an area Senator Stafford created in 1984. We are naming it after him. White Rocks was among his most beloved natural areas in our State. We know that he and Helen could actually see the towering white cliff face of White Rocks Mountain from their home. This will remind generations of future Vermonters of Senator Stafford's towering achievements and the humanity of his spirits.

I hope all my colleagues will support this legislation.

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

Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation?

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Leahy are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Madam President, I realize I have gone over the appropriate time, and I appreciate the Chair not calling me on it.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Pryor to introduce the ``Effective Corruption Prosecutions Act of 2007,'' a bill to strengthen the tools available to Federal prosecutors in combating public corruption. This bill gives investigators and prosecutors the statutory tools and the resources they need to ensure that serious and insidious public corruption is detected and punished.

In November, voters sent a strong message that they were tired of the culture of corruption. From war profiteers and corrupt officials in Iraq to convicted Administration officials to influence-peddling lobbyists and, regrettably, even Members of Congress, too many supposed public servants were serving their own interests, rather than the public interest. The American people staged an intervention and made it clear that they would not stand for it any longer. They expect the Congress to take action. We need to restore the people's trust by acting to clean up the people's government.

The Senate's new leadership is introducing important lobbying reform and ethics legislation. Similar legislation passed the Senate last year, but stalled in the House. This is a vital first step.

But the most serious corruption cannot be prevented only by changing our own rules. Bribery and extortion are committed by people bent on getting around the rules and banking that they won't get caught. These offenses are very difficult to detect and even harder to prove. Because they attack the core of our democracy, these offenses must

be found out and punished. Congress must send a signal that it will not tolerate this corruption by providing better tools for federal prosecutors to combat it. This bill will do exactly that.

First, the bill extends the statute of limitations for the most serious public corruption offenses. Specifically, it extends the statute of limitations from five years to eight years for bribery, deprivation of honest services, and extortion by a public official. This is an important step because public corruption cases are among the most difficult and time-consuming cases to investigate and prosecute. They often require use of informants and electronic monitoring, as well as review of extensive financial and electronic records, techniques which take time to develop and implement.

Bank fraud, arson, and passport fraud, among other offenses, all have 10-year statutes of limitations. Since public corruption offenses are so important to our democracy and these cases are so difficult to investigate and prove, a more modest extended statute of limitations for these offenses is a reasonable step to help our corruption investigators and prosecutors do their jobs. Corrupt officials should not be able to get away with their ill gotten gains just by waiting out the investigators.

This bill also facilitates the investigation and prosecution of an important offense known as Federal program bribery, Title 18, United States Code, section 666. Federal program bribery is the key Federal statute for prosecuting bribery involving state and local officials, as well as officials of the many organizations that receive substantial Federal money. This bill would allow agents and prosecutors investigating this important offense to request authority to conduct wiretaps and to use Federal program bribery as a basis for a racketeering charge.

Wiretaps, when appropriately requested and authorized, are an important method for agents and prosecutors to gain evidence of corrupt activities, which can otherwise be next to impossible to prove without an informant. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute is also an important tool which helps prosecutors target organized crime and corruption.

Agents and prosecutors may currently request authority to conduct wiretaps to investigate many serious offenses, including bribery of federal officials and even sports bribery, and may predicate RICO charges on these offenses, as well. It is only reasonable that these important tools also be available for investigating the similar and equally important offense of federal program bribery.

Lastly, my bill authorizes $25 million in additional Federal funds over each of the next four years to give federal investigators and prosecutors needed resources to go after public corruption. Last month, FBI Director Mueller in written testimony to the Judiciary Committee called public corruption the FBI's top criminal investigative priority. However, a September 2005 Report by Department of Justice Inspector General Fine found that, from 2000 to 2004, there was an overall reduction in public corruption matters handled by the FBI. The report also found declines in resources dedicated to investigating public corruption, in corruption cases initiated, and in cases forwarded to US Attorney's Offices.

I am heartened by Director Mueller's assertion that there has recently been an increase in the number of agents investigating public corruption cases and the number of cases investigated, but I remain concerned by the Inspector General's findings. I am concerned because the FBI in recent years has diverted resources away from criminal law priorities, including corruption, into counterterrorism. The FBI may need to divert further resources to cover the growing costs of Sentinel, their data management system. The Department of Justice has similarly diverted resources, particularly from United States Attorney's Offices.

Additional funding is important to compensate for this diversion of resources and to ensure that corruption offenses are aggressively pursued. My bill will give the FBI, the United States Attorney's Offices, and the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice new resources to hire additional public corruption investigators and prosecutors. They can finally have the manpower they need to track down and make these difficult cases, and to root out the corruption.

If we are serious about addressing the egregious misconduct that we have recently witnessed, Congress must enact meaningful legislation to give investigators and prosecutors the resources they need to enforce our public corruption laws. I strongly urge Congress to do more to restore the public's trust in their government.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill that creates criminal penalties for war profiteers and cheats who would exploit taxpayer-funded efforts in Iraq and elsewhere around the world. Last year, despite the mounting evidence of widespread contractor fraud and abuse in Iraq, the Republican-controlled Senate would not act on it. Instead, the Congress took a terrible misstep in seeking to end the work of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. I have been proposing versions of this bill

since 2003, when it did pass the Senate. Unfortunately, this crucial provision was stripped out of the final version of a bill by a Republican-controlled conference committee.

There is growing evidence of widespread contractor fraud in Iraq, yet prosecuting criminal cases against these war profiteers is difficult under current law. We must crack down on this rampant fraud and abuse that squanders American taxpayers' dollars and jeopardizes the safety of our troops abroad. That is why I renew my efforts for accountability and action with the introduction of the War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007. I am pleased to join with Senators Bingaman, Kerry, Harkin, Rockefeller, Dorgan, Wyden, Schumer, Cantwell, Bill Nelson, Clinton, Lautenberg and Menendez to introduce this legislation.

Congress has sent billions upon billions of dollars to Iraq with too little accountability and too few financial controls. More than $50 billion of this money has gone to private contractors hired to guard bases, drive trucks, feed and shelter the troops and rebuild the country. This is more than the annual budget of the Department of Homeland Security.

Instead of results from these companies, we are seeing penalties levied for allegations of fraud and abuse. At least 10 companies with billions of dollars in U.S. contracts for Iraq reconstruction have paid more than $300 million in penalties since 2000, to resolve allegations of bid rigging, fraud, delivery of faulty military parts and environmental damage. Seven other companies with Iraq reconstruction contracts have agreed to pay financial penalties without admitting wrongdoing.

In 2005, Halliburton took in approximately $3.6 billion from contracts to serve U.S. troops and rebuild the oil industry in Iraq. Halliburton executives say that the company received about $1 billion a month for Iraq work in 2006. In addition, last month, we learned of new plans to spend hundreds of millions more to create jobs in Iraq.

Last year, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction found that millions of U.S. taxpayer funds appropriated for Iraq reconstruction have been lost and diverted. Yet we continue to send more taxpayer funds to Iraq, without accountability.

Too much of this money is unaccounted for, and many of the facilities and services that these funds were supposed to pay for are still nonexistent. We in Congress must ask--where did all the money go? We need to press for more accountability over the use and abuse of billions of taxpayers' dollars sent as development aid to Iraq, not less.

A new law to combat war profiteering in Iraq and elsewhere is sorely needed and long overdue. Although there are anti-fraud laws to protect against the waste of U.S. tax dollars at home, no law expressly prohibits war profiteering or expressly confers jurisdiction on U.S. federal courts to hear fraud cases involving war profiteering committed overseas.

The bill I introduced today would criminalize ``war profiteering''-- overcharging taxpayers in order to defraud and to profit excessively from a war, military action, or reconstruction efforts. It would also prohibit any fraud against the United States involving a contract for the provision of goods or services in connection with a war, military action, or for relief or reconstruction activities. This new crime would be a felony, subject to criminal penalties of up to 20 years in prison and fines of up to $1 million, or twice the illegal gross profits of the crime.

The bill also prohibits false statements connected with the provision of goods or services in connection with a war or reconstruction effort. This crime would also be a felony, subject to criminal penalties of up to 10 years in prison and fines of up to $1 million, or twice the illegal gross profits of the crime.

The measure also addresses weakness in the existing laws used to combat war profiteering, by providing clear authority for the Government to seek criminal penalties and to recover excessive profits for war profiteering overseas. These are strong and focused sanctions that are narrowly tailored to punish and deter fraud or excessive profiteering in contracts, both at home and abroad.

The message sent by this bill is clear--any act to exploit the crisis situation in Iraq or elsewhere overseas for exorbitant gain is unacceptable, reprehensible, and criminal. Such deceit demeans and exploits the sacrifices that our military personnel are making in Iraq and Afghanistan, and around the world. This bill also builds on a strong legacy of historical efforts to stem war profiteering. Congress implemented excessive-profits taxes and contract renegotiation laws after both World Wars, and again after the Korean War. Advocating exactly such an approach, President Roosevelt once declared it our duty to ensure that ``a few do not gain from the sacrifices of the many.''

Our Government cannot in good faith ask its people to sacrifice for reconstruction efforts that allow some to profit unfairly. When U.S. taxpayers have been called upon to bear the burden of reconstruction contracts--where contracts are awarded in a system that offers little competition and even less accountability--concerns about wartime profiteering are a grave matter.

Combating war profiteering is not a Democratic issue, or a Republican issue. Rather, it is a cause that all Americans can support. When I first introduced this bill in 2003, it came to be cosponsored by 21 Senators. The Senate Appropriations Committee also unanimously accepted these provisions during a Senate Appropriations Committee markup of the $87 billion appropriations bill for Iraq and Afghanistan for Fiscal Year 2004, and this provision passed the Senate. Passing bipartisan war profiteering prevention legislation was the right thing to do then, and it is the right thing to do now.

I am hopeful that in a new year, and with a new Congress, we can make a fresh start and forge a bipartisan partnership on this important issue that will result in passage of this bill. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, on the first day of this new Congress, I join Senator Specter to reintroduce a bill to restore the Great Writ of habeas corpus, a cornerstone of American liberty since the founding of this Nation. The Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007 bill continues our efforts to amend last year's Military Commissions Act, to right a wrong and to restore a basic protection to American law. This is an issue on which we continue to work together and urge Senators on both sides of the aisle to join with us.

As Justice Scalia wrote in the Hamdi case: ``The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive.'' The remedy that secures that most basic of freedoms is habeas corpus. It provides a check against arbitrary detentions and constitutional violations. It guarantees an opportunity to go to court, with the aid of a lawyer, to prove one's innocence. This fundamental protection was rolled back in an unprecedented and unnecessary way in the run up to last fall's election by passage of the Military Commissions Act.

The Military Commissions Act eliminated that right, permanently, for any non-citizen determined to be an enemy combatant, or even ``awaiting'' such a determination. That includes the approximately 12 million lawful permanent residents in the United States today, people who work and pay taxes in America and are lawful residents. This new law means that any of these people can be detained, forever, without any ability to challenge their detention Federal court--or anywhere else--simply on the Government's say-so that they are awaiting determination whether they are enemy combatants.

I deeply regret that Senator Specter and I were unsuccessful in our efforts to stop this injustice when the President and the Republican leadership insisted on rushing the Military Commissions Act through Congress in the weeks before the recent elections. We proposed an amendment that would have removed the habeas-stripping provision from the Military Commissions Act. We fell just three votes short in those political charged days. It is my hope that the new Senate and new Congress will reconsider this matter, restore this fundamental protection and revitalize our tradition of checks and balances.

Giving Government such raw, unfettered power as this law does should concern every American. Last fall I spelled out a nightmare scenario about a hard-working legal permanent resident who makes an innocent donation to, among other charities, a Muslim charity that the Government secretly suspects might be a source of funding for critics of the United States Government. I suggested that, on the basis of

this donation and perhaps a report of ``suspicious behavior'' from an overzealous neighbor, the permanent resident could be brought in for questioning, denied a lawyer, confined, and even tortured. Such a person would have no recourse in the courts for years, for decades, forever.

Many people viewed this kind of nightmare scenario as fanciful, just the rhetoric of a politician. It was not. It is all spelled out clearly in the language of the law that this body passed. In November, the scenario I spelled out was confirmed by the Department of Justice itself in a legal brief submitted in federal court in Virginia. The Justice Department, in a brief to dismiss a detainee's habeas case, said that the Military Commissions Act allows the Government to detain any non-citizen designated an enemy combatant without giving that person any ability to challenge his detention in court. This is true, the Justice Department said, even for someone arrested and imprisoned in the United States. The Washington Post wrote that the brief ``raises the possibility that any of the millions of immigrants living in the United States could be subject to indefinite detention if they are accused of ties to terrorist groups.''

In fact, the situation is even more stark than The Washington Post story suggested. The Justice Department's brief says that the Government can detain any non-citizen declared to be an enemy combatant. But the law this Congress passed says the Government need not even make that declaration: They can hold people indefinitely who are awaiting determination whether or not they are enemy combatants.

It gets worse. Republican leaders in the Senate followed the White House's lead and greatly expanded the definition of ``enemy combatants'' in the dark of night in the final days before the bill's passage, so that enemy combatants need not be soldiers on any battlefield. They can be people who donate small amounts of money, or people that any group of decision-makers selected by the President decides to call enemy combatants. The possibilities are chilling.

The Administration has made it clear that they intend to use every expansive definition and unchecked power given to them by the new law. November's Justice Department brief made clear that any of our legal immigrants could be held indefinitely without recourse in court. Earlier in November, the Justice Department went to court to say that detainees who had been held in secret CIA prisons could not even meet with lawyers because they might tell their lawyers about the cruel interrogation techniques used against them. In other words, if our Government tortures somebody, that person loses his right to a lawyer because he might tell the lawyer about having been tortured. A law professor was quoted as saying about the Government's position in that case: ``Kafka-esque doesn't do it justice. This is `Alice in Wonderland.' ''

We have eliminated basic legal and human rights for the 12 million lawful permanent residents who live and work among us, to say nothing of the millions of other legal immigrants and visitors who we welcome to our shores each year. We have removed a vital check that our legal system provides against the government arbitrarily detaining people for life without charge. We may well have also made many of our remaining limits against torture and cruel and inhuman treatment obsolete because they are unenforceable. We have removed the mechanism the Constitution provides to check government overreaching and lawlessness.

This is wrong. It is unconstitutional. It is un-American. It is designed to ensure that the Bush-Cheney Administration will never again be embarrassed by a United States Supreme Court decision reviewing its unlawful abuses of power. The conservative Supreme Court, with seven of its nine members appointed by Republican Presidents, has been the only check on this Administration's lawlessness. Certainly the last Congress did not do it. With passage of the Military Commissions Act, the Republican Congress completed the job of eviscerating its role as a check and balance on the Administration.

Some Senators uneasy about the Military Commissions Act's disastrous habeas provision took solace in the thought that it would be struck down by the courts. Instead, the first court to consider that provision, a federal court in the District of Columbia, upheld the provision. We should not outsource our moral, legal and constitutional responsibility to the courts. Congress must be accountable for its actions and we should act to right this wrong.

Abolishing habeas corpus for anyone who the Government thinks might have assisted enemies of the United States is unnecessary and morally wrong. It is a betrayal of the most basic values of freedom for which America stands. It makes a mockery of the administration's lofty rhetoric about exporting freedom across the globe.

We should take steps to ensure that our enemies can be brought to justice efficiently and quickly. I introduced a bill to do that back in 2002, as did Senator Specter, when we each proposed a set of laws to establish military commissions. The Bush-Cheney Administration rejected our efforts and designed a regime the United States Supreme Court determined to be unlawful. Establishing appropriate military commissions is not the question. We all agree to do that. What we need to revisit is the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus for millions of legal immigrants and others, denying their right to challenge indefinite detainment on the, government's say-so.

It is from strength that America should defend our values and our Constitution. It takes commitment to those values to demand accountability from the Government. In standing up for American values and security, I will keep working on this issue until we restore the checks and balances that are fundamental to preserving the liberties that define us as a nation. We can ensure our security without giving up our liberty.