Floor Statements

Mr. President, it is disheartening to be back on the floor of the Senate again to talk about the looming humanitarian catastrophe in the Darfur region of Sudan. Despite the partial peace agreement signed in May between the Sudanese Government and one rebel faction, the 3-year civil war

in Darfur has intensified in recent months. By any account, the situation is rapidly deteriorating.

Today, Darfur faces a more complex and brutal environment where rebel groups have splintered, and one has joined forces with the Sudanese Army, strengthening jingaweit militias that have long used rape, murder and mayhem to gain control of the region.

On August 28, Sudanese Government forces launched a major offensive in Darfur to finish off any opposing rebels, in direct violation of the Darfur Peace Agreement and cease-fire accord. As a result, tens of thousands more civilians have been forcibly displaced, bringing the total to more than 2 million people. And, of course, for those who have been displaced, disease and dysentery are rampant, causing the death rate to increase.

Relief organizations that have not already left the region face near impossible hurdles to reach hundreds of thousands of desperate people in need of food, water, and medical attention who are also vulnerable to the intensifying and indiscriminate aerial bombings. It is a scene straight out of Hell.

The well-intentioned, 7,000-member African Union peacekeeping force is understaffed, under-equipped, and has been unable to stop the violence in Darfur. The fact is they don't even have the communications, airlift, mobility, or support that most military would have. Estimates of the number of people who have died from war and disease in Darfur range as high as 450,000. That is 75 percent of the population of my own State of Vermont.

The United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1706 that would replace the African Union force with a much larger U.N. force empowered to protect civilians. The Sudanese Government not only rejected the resolution but demanded that the African Union withdraw from the country after its mandate expires at the end of this month.

While the United Nations, the African Union, and most of the international community are united in support of a larger U.N. peacekeeping force, the government in Khartoum has repeatedly refused. I think they probably fear that the U.N. can pose a challenge to its own ability to act with impunity and its own ability to carry out murder and mass extinction of people.

It is ludicrous that a lone despot, Sudan's President Omar Hassan al- Bashir, can obstruct the deployment of a U.N. peacekeeping force to stop genocide from continuing in his country. He has even gone so far as to threaten to attack any U.N. force that enters Sudan. This is a man who has made it very clear he supports the genocide and will try to stop anybody who wants to bring a halt to it.

Despite the Bush administration's diplomatic efforts in pressing for urgent international intervention to ease the Darfur crisis, China and Russia managed to thwart passage of a stronger U.N. Security Council resolution. And on August 20, the Arab League Committee on Sudan backed the Sudanese President's refusal of a U.N. peacekeeping force. They further distanced themselves from any responsibility for the situation in Darfur. It is amazing. People are dying. People are being killed. They are being raped. They are being murdered. They are being starved and they are dying of all kinds of diseases. Nobody takes responsibility. All the forces that can do something about it--Russia, China, the Arab League, Sudan itself, that could stop this--wash their hands of it.

The diplomatic inertia on Darfur is illustrative of just how much America's credibility and influence has eroded in the eyes of the world, largely because of our misguided policy in Iraq. We can't threaten anybody. We can't cajole anybody. We have lost our credibility. We have squandered the trust and confidence of our allies, particularly those in the Arab world, and now the administration's leverage with which to solve other regional and global crises has weakened. Darfur is one example. The impasse over Iran's nuclear program is another.

It is tragic how much damage this administration's policies have caused to America's leadership on so many issues that require the cooperation and support of other nations. The price in Darfur is an emboldened Sudanese regime that has managed to defy U.S. diplomatic pressure and the deaths of thousands of innocent people. Urgent and immediate action is essential to save Darfur from further catastrophe.

First, the President will today finally appoint a Presidential Special Envoy to Sudan. Many of us here, myself included, called for the designation of a Special Envoy for Sudan for months, so this long overdue decision is welcome.

Secondly, although the African Union troops are too few and lightly equipped to stop the violence, they are serving as witnesses for the rest of the world at a time when the government in Khartoum commits atrocities and makes it more difficult for humanitarian organizations and journalists to operate.

The United States and other nations must continue to support the African Union until a U.N. peacekeeping force is deployed, knowing that could take 4 to 6 months.

There should be no doubt that our first priority is to get U.N. peacekeepers on the ground as soon as possible. But in the interim, if African Union troops are forced to leave at the end of September, the last line of protection will be lost and an even worse period of lawlessness and slaughter will begin.

Third, the administration should call upon the European Union and United Nations Security Council to impose financial, travel, and diplomatic sanctions against the Sudanese leadership, rebel forces, and others responsible for the atrocities in Darfur.

Fourth, we must increase diplomatic pressure on countries friendly to Khartoum--particularly Russia, China, members of the Arab League--to use their influence to convince Sudan to support a United Nations peacekeeping force. If they don't, Russia, China, and members of the Arab League also have to bear complicity for genocide. Unfortunately, these are the same countries where our own influence has weakened dramatically over the past 5 years.

Fifth, the administration should urge all United Nations member states to accelerate implementation of Security Council Resolution 1706 for the deployment of U.N. peacekeepers to Darfur. The White House should be working vigorously to persuade other countries to commit troops and funds for the U.N. force.

Finally, in circumstances such as these, the United Nations should be empowered to deploy troops to prevent the mass murder of civilians, irrespective of stubborn, self-serving opposition of the government of the country.

When a country's corrupt, abusive leader, lacking any legitimate mandate from the people, flagrantly violates U.N. resolutions and a cease-fire agreement and embarks on a scorched Earth campaign which threatens the lives of countless innocent people, the U.N. should be able to go in.

If Darfur was not in Africa but it was in Europe, we would have responded differently. Although belated, our response, as the leader of NATO, to the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia put a quick end to that ethnic cleansing.

Darfur is on a different continent, but the forcefulness of our response to genocide should not depend on where genocide occurs or the race or ethnicity or nationality of the victims. Human beings are dying, irrespective of their color or their ethnicity or their nationality. The United States should stand up and do all we can to stop genocide.

I have no illusions about the difficulties of ending this conflict, nor do I question the sincerity of those who tried. But the efforts so far have been woefully inadequate. The situation calls for more intensive, sustained, high-level attention than our country and other countries have provided so far. It is genocide whether it is White people or Black people, whether it is Europeans or Africans. Genocide is genocide.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, what is the pending question?

Mr. President, I will use part of that time.

Today we are considering the nomination of Alice Fisher for the position of Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. We have less than 2 weeks left in the legislative session before we recess for the elections. The Republican leadership has once again delayed doing the work of the American people so they can consider a nominee about whom many questions remain.

We are being required to consider this nomination despite unanswered questions regarding her role in the administration's controversial, questionable detainee treatment policies. Of course, on these questions, as on so many other matters involving torture and detainees at Guantanamo, the administration has refused to provide Congress with the information it has sought.

As I said 2 weeks ago when the President re-nominated five extremely controversial choices for lifetime positions on the Nation's highest courts, I continue to be disappointed in the misguided priorities of the Bush-Cheney administration and, in fact, the rubberstamp Senate Republican leadership. I really think all Americans--Republicans and Democrats--would be better served if we used the few remaining weeks of this legislative session to address vital, unfinished business, such as the war in Iraq. That might be something the American people would really like to see us debate, the war in Iraq. We haven't had a real debate on it since we saw that huge sign a few years ago behind the President that said: ``Mission Accomplished.'' He was dressed up like Tom Cruise in ``Top Gun'' and put up the sign that said: ``Mission Accomplished.'' I guess they decided it was all over; why debate it?

It would be nice if we enacted a Federal budget. The law says--the law says, and I say this to my law-and-order friends who control the agenda, my Republican friends who control the agenda--the law says we have to have a budget passed by April. We didn't do it in April or May or June or July or August, now September. We are all law and order around here, but apparently we think we don't have to follow the law.

Of course, we are supposed to pass the 11 remaining required appropriations bills by the end of this month. It doesn't look like that is going to happen.

We talked about enacting lobbying reform and ethics legislation. I remember the Republican leadership having a wonderful press conference, just absolutely wonderful--just touched by it--especially knowing they would never bring up the legislation.

It would be nice to address the skyrocketing cost of fuel. I don't think any one of us goes home where we don't hear about the cost of gas, but we don't do anything about that.

People talk to me about health care. We don't do anything about that, either.

How about a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill? I stood outside the White House and praised President Bush for his support of a comprehensive immigration reform bill. He told several of us in a long meeting--and I think he was passionate about it--that we needed to have one. When a 30-vehicle caravan of Vice President Cheney's with sirens wailing came up to the Hill today, I don't think they were saying: Let's pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill.

But what we can do is controversial nominations--not the items the law requires us to do but the things the fund-raising letters require.

In this case, we have an interesting nominee to be the head of the Criminal Division for the Justice Department. She has never prosecuted a case. She has minimal trial experience. But she is going to be the head of the Criminal Division of the Justice Department. Her career has been spent almost entirely in private practice.

She is a longtime protegee of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who was in overall charge of cleaning up after Katrina, which I know will happen some day. So after being his protegee, she is rewarded with the post of heading the Criminal Division of the Justice Department.

I did not block her from coming out of the Judiciary Committee. We had a voice vote on June 16 of last year. But then concerns arose about her role, while Mr. Chertoff's deputy, in meetings in which controversial interrogation techniques used on detainees at the Naval Facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were discussed and decided upon with the Department of Defense. There remain questions about whether Ms. Fisher attended those meetings and her role in determining how these detainees would be questioned and treated. What did she know? When did she know it? What did she do about it? They are simple questions: What did she know? When did she know it? And what did she do about it? None of that has been answered.

This administration has yet to come clean to the Congress or to the American people in connection with the secret legal justifications it has generated and practices it employs. They can't dismiss these outrageous practices at Guantanamo as the actions of a few ``bad apples''. With the Senate adoption of the antitorture amendment last year, the recent adoption of the Army Field Manual, and 5 years of the Bush-Cheney administration's resistance to the rule of law and resistance to the U.S. military abiding by its Geneva obligations, that may be finally coming to a close. Of course, we can't even be sure of that, given that despite the great fanfare surrounding the law against torture, we had a Presidential Signing Statement that undermined enactment of the antitorture law and basically said the President and those he designates can work outside the law.

Now, I remain troubled by the nominee's lack of prosecutorial trial experience. There have been people who have held this position--Mr. Chertoff, James Robinson, William Weld--who were seasoned Federal prosecutors. In her case, she would be supervising people who have to prosecute and make judgment calls on very complex cases. They would have to decide whether to go forward. She will be the one to finally sign off on that, but she has never prosecuted a case. It is sort of like saying you are going to be the head brain surgeon; however, you have never really been in an operating room, you have never seen a brain, but there you go.

Even more troubling, perhaps, is the fact that there are so few senior officials at the Justice Department who do have experience in criminal prosecution. I agree with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, who has noted: The lack of criminal experience at the top of the Department ``does concern me.'' He said that while there were lots of ``first-class professionals'' throughout the ranks of prosecutors, ``there are tough judgment calls that have to be made at the top, and it's good to have some experience on what criminal intent means when you have to make those decisions.''

Both Senator Specter and I are former prosecutors. We understand that.

I also share the concern of the distinguished senior Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin, with the uncertainty about Ms. Fisher's role as Mr. Chertoff's deputy in the development and use of controversial detainee interrogation techniques. Despite repeated requests from Senator Levin, who is, after all, the ranking member and a past chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, joined by others, the Justice Department refused to satisfy Senators on these points. As a result, concerns remain whether Ms. Fisher had knowledge of the abuse of detainees at Guantanamo and what, if any, action she took. The rubberstamp Republican leadership of this Congress has gone along with the administration and said: You can't have the information.

Sometimes holding this stuff back creates far more of a problem than just telling the truth out front. If FBI Director Mueller had been more forthcoming with me at, or after, the May 2004 hearing in which I asked him what the FBI had observed at Guantanamo, we could have gotten to a detention and interrogation policy befitting the United States years sooner than we have. But rather than answer a simple, clear question, it is easier to stonewall.

If the administration had been forthcoming with Congress in October of 2001 when it decided secretly to flout the FISA law and conduct warrantless wiretaps of Americans, we could have avoided 5 years of lawbreaking, and we could have had a more effective surveillance program targeted at terrorists, not Americans.

In other words, every time they cover up, things get worse. Just tell the truth, be open, and things get better. If the administration had answered me when I asked over and over about the Convention Against Torture and about rendition, we could have come to grips with those matters before they degenerated, as they have, into what has become an international embarrassment for the United States. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, now acknowledges it threatens our moral authority on the war on terrorism. Again, if the administration had honestly answered years ago, we could have cleared it up, and we wouldn't be in a case where the rest of the world looks at us now and asks us what we are doing.

Just today, a Canadian commission, having studied it, reports that a Canadian citizen, Maher Arar, who was returning from vacation--a Canadian citizen, a Canadian citizen--was arrested by American authorities at JFK Airport in New York. He was held for 12 days, not allowed to speak to a lawyer or a Canadian consular official, and he was then turned over not to Canada, which was 200 miles away, but to Syria where he was tortured, thousands of miles away.

So here is what the United States is faced with. We seized a person from another country in New York, we don't allow him to speak to a lawyer, and we don't allow him to speak with his consular official from his own embassy. We don't send him back to his country, where if he is wanted for something they could arrest him--it is, after all, about a 5-hour drive to the Canadian border--instead we ship him thousands of miles away to be tortured in a Syrian prison, incidentally done without the knowledge of the Canadians.

Now, I know how Senator Levin must feel because all of my efforts to get to the bottom of this case have also been brushed aside by the Bush-Cheney administration. Over the years, I have yet to get a satisfactory explanation. The Canadian commission, though, found he had no ties to terrorists. He was arrested on bad intelligence, and his forced confessions in Syria reflected torture, not the truth. We know if you torture somebody long enough, they will say anything you want.

The United States should acknowledge what it did, but instead, it uses legal maneuvers to thwart every effort to get to the facts and be accountable for its mistakes. No matter how egregious the mistake, no matter how many international laws are broken, nobody ever admits a mistake around here.

Now, I certainly understand, if somebody votes against this nomination, it may be a vote not so much against Ms. Fisher, but a vote against this administration's stonewalling and going it alone to the detriment of the interest of the United States and the safety, security, and rights of all Americans.

Last month, our Nation commemorated the one-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina and the devastation it wrought. We haven't done much to clean it up at Homeland Security, but it is the one-year anniversary. Last week, our Nation commemorated the fifth anniversary of the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil in our Nation's history. These twin tragedies--one caused by nature, one caused by terrorists--serve as somber, but ever present, reminders that our Nation is still not secure. One year after this administration's appalling foot-dragging, incompetent, and wasteful response to Hurricane Katrina, our Nation still has citizens on the Gulf Coast who do not have homes to return to or jobs waiting when they get there. Five years after 9/11, our country still lacks an effective international strategy to protect the American people from terrorism. We need to refocus our efforts and our resources where they belong: on providing real security for the American people. America can do better. The full agenda before us as we enter the final weeks of this legislative session reflects how, even though one party controls the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate--even though we have a one-party Government--these Republicans have failed, at our Nation's most pressing hour, to provide this country with leadership.

Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Texas on the Senate floor. I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in my 32 years as a U.S. Senator, I have met many extraordinary people. They have included Presidents, Kings and Nobel laureates, artists, soldiers, nurses, activists, and ordinary Americans who are doing any number of wonderful, selfless, and courageous things for their families, their communities, and their country. Some of these people chose careers in public service. Others were leading normal, uneventful lives when they were unexpectedly confronted with circumstances that caused them to become leaders. Many have simply lived inconspicuous lives caring for others. And then there are those who have struggled to overcome unfair and seemingly impossible hurdles and in doing so have shown a force of character and spirit that breaks barriers and inspires awe among everyone they meet.

Ben Chater, a Vermonter who interned in my office several years ago during the summer after his sophomore year at the University of California at Berkeley, is in the latter category. Born with cerebral palsy, Ben has faced obstacles from birth that the rest of us could not even imagine, much less overcome. He has done so with amazing grace, courage, and good humor, and his accomplishments are nothing short of awe inspiring. Ben's refusal to let his disability prevent him from taking on practically any challenge has been an example for me and my wife Marcelle, for my staff, and for virtually everyone who has come into contact with him.

I have little doubt that Ben will continue to set ambitious goals and in reaching them he will demonstrate even further the incredible capacity of the human spirit to overcome adversity. He will also continue to erase the stereotypes and misconceptions about the potential of people with disabilities.

Ben was recently the subject of an article in the Vermont Sunday Magazine by Tom Slayton, who is also the editor of Vermont Life, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record so others can be inspired by Ben's life and accomplishments.

Mr. President, I wish to share with the Senate an important analysis of the current crisis of democracy in the Middle East by one of Egypt's wisest and most courageous voices for democracy.

We all have an interest in supporting democracy. We also recognize that countries in the Middle East, including Muslim countries with which we have close relations, are confronting difficult and divisive social, religious, and political challenges. These challenges have no simple solutions. But we should be concerned with the support that the Bush administration, like many of its predecessors, gives to autocratic and corrupt regimes in this volatile part of the world. It has contributed to anger and disillusionment, particularly among Muslims, toward their own governments and toward the United States, and growing support for those who promote extremist political and religious agendas.

Saad Eddin Ibrahim is a respected Egyptian prodemocracy activist and sociologist. He founded the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies at the American University of Cairo, one of the few independent research institutions in the Arab world. He has been wrongly imprisoned, and then acquitted, for his criticism of the Egyptian Government and for his relations with international organizations. Saad Ibrahim is a respected and principled advocate for human rights and democratic values, and he represents a voice of reason and tolerance in an increasingly polarized and antagonistic Muslim society.

His recent op-ed in the Washington Post should serve as a wake-up call for proponents of our current policies in support of repressive regimes around the world. He has had the courage to speak out against Muslim dictatorships, and he not only represents those who oppose authoritarianism but also those who oppose radical Islam and extremism.

All Senators should take the time to consider Saad Ibrahim's perspective, and I ask unanimous consent that his op-ed be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to discuss the situation in Sri Lanka, which not long ago was one of promise after a cease-fire agreement was signed in 2002 between the former government and the LTTE ``Tamil Tigers.'' The cease-fire was never perfect, but for several years negotiations on a political settlement offered a ray of hope for an end to the conflict. After April 2006, however, there was escalating violence and an increasing pattern of violations of the cease-fire agreement by both sides.

On July 20, the LTTE closed a reservoir sluice gate in an LTTE- controlled area near the eastern town of Trincomalee, cutting the water supply to about 60,000 people in Government-controlled territory. In response, Sri Lankan Government forces conducted airstrikes over several days against LTTE positions in the area and on July 30 began a ground offensive to capture the reservoir's control point. This increase in violence contributed to the more than 800 deaths reported between January and August, including some in which large numbers of civilians were killed in flagrant violations of international law by both sides, and hundreds more combatants and civilians have died since then.

Politically motivated killings, the recruitment of child soldiers, indiscriminate raids on civilians, targeting of international aid workers, and torture in police custody are only some of the human rights abuses that have been recently committed as reported by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Additionally, a looming humanitarian crisis exists as the number of Sri Lankans displaced within the country by fighting this year has passed the 200,000 mark, and an estimated 8,700 citizens have fled to India. Road, air, and sea links to the Tamil population in the north have been cut, and food, water, and fuel shortages are severe.

We should be deeply concerned with the collapse of the peace process and escalating violence in Sri Lanka. Although it is apparent that neither the Government nor the LTTE can defeat the other militarily, nor have they demonstrated the political will to stop the fighting and resolve this conflict peacefully. A report on September 13 that the Government and the LTTE have proposed new peace talks is welcome. But the Sri Lankan people have been disappointed countless times before. Several steps should be taken immediately, most importantly to prevent further harm to civilians who have suffered disproportionately.

It is critical that humanitarian aid be allowed to reach those who have been displaced, whether as a result of the conflict or the lingering effects of the December 2004 tsunami. Relief agencies need unimpeded access to the affected populations, and civilians should be allowed to leave contested areas.

The LTTE has been designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. Government on account of its wanton attacks against civilians and forced recruitment of children. These abusive tactics, which flagrantly violate international law, should be universally condemned.

There is also the issue of U.S. support to Sri Lankan Government security forces, who have been responsible for violations of human rights. The Department of State needs to be doubly sure that the Leahy amendment, which prohibits U.S. assistance to units of foreign security forces who violate human rights, is being strictly complied with.

In addition, we should reaffirm our support for the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission, which reports on violations of the cease-fire by both sides. A stronger monitoring presence would deter abuses, provide systematic documentation of violations, and help to address the problem of impunity that has contributed to the recurrent cycles of violence and reprisal in Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka is a divided country, but its people, whether Sinhalese, Tamil, or Muslim, are as gentle, industrious, and peace loving as any in the world. The Tamils have legitimate demands, but the LTTE's tactics are deplorable. The Government has been divided, and it has not been able to provide the sustained leadership necessary to reconcile the interests of the conflicting parties.

The chairs of the Tokyo Donors' Conference--Japan, the European Union, Norway, and the United States--need to find more effective ways to convince both sides to return to the bargaining table. There is no other way to end this conflict. The longer it takes to resume a process of good faith negotiations, the more responsibility the LTTE and the Government will bear for the needless deaths of innocent civilians.

Mr. President, today we remember the life and work of Munir Said Thalib, Indonesia's foremost human rights defender, who on September 7, 2004, was fatally poisoned while on an airplane flight to the Netherlands where he planned to continue his legal studies. This despicable crime, in which the Indonesian Intelligence Service has been implicated, had repercussions throughout Asia and around the world and has particularly serious implications for Indonesia.

Munir was an outstanding human rights advocate best known as a founder and director of the highly respected Commission for ``Disappeared'' Persons and Victims of Violence. He was working as the director of the Jakarta-based human rights group Imparsial before his murder. In 2000, Munir received the Right Livelihood Award ``for his courage and dedication in fighting for human rights and the civilian control of the military in Indonesia.''

Two years after his untimely and tragic death, the Indonesian Government has failed to properly investigate and prosecute those responsible. Despite the conviction of an airline pilot for his role in the murder, the police and Attorney General's office continue to ignore the evidence and recommendations of a Presidential fact-finding team that has implicated senior Indonesian intelligence officers and airline officials in the crime. President Yudhoyono has rightly described this matter as a test case for whether Indonesia has changed from its authoritarian past. At this point, it appears that a culture of impunity remains deeply embedded in Indonesian society.

The fiscal year 2007 State, Foreign Operations appropriations bill that was reported by the Appropriations Committee on July 10, 2006, includes my amendment which requires a report on progress on human rights in Indonesia, including the investigation of the murder of Munir Said Thaib. If the Indonesia Government aspires to be seen as one that respects human rights and the rule of law, which is fundamental to any democracy, it is essential that whoever was responsible for ordering and carrying out this heinous crime be identified and brought to justice.

Mr. President, I want to offer a comment on an aspect of the port security bill, included in the managers' package. The IP- enabled voice communications and public safety provisions will encourage the use of E-911

by Voice over Internet Protocol providers. I want to thank Senator Stevens for removing language from the initial amendment that would have delayed implementation of this public safety program. The provisions that were removed would have needlessly endangered lives. Accordingly, the modification was essential. As Americans increasingly use IP-enabled voice communications, there is an increasing necessity to ensure these callers have access to their local 911 public safety answering points in case of emergency.

The language of the initial amendment would have provided gaping loopholes for VoIP providers to avoid 911 obligations. It would have delayed the Federal Communications Commission's rules regarding implementation of 911 requirements on VoIP providers; grandfathered subscribers who signed up prior to December 31, 2005--meaning those subscribers would not be assured that when they called 911 they would reach their local first responders; and would have authorized other broad ``waivers'' from the rules.

I want to thank the firefighters--specifically the International Association of Fire Chiefs and the International Association of Fire Fighters--for bringing these important public safety concerns with the initial amendment to our attention. Through their diligence, we have an amendment that will promote the deployment of critical 911 services, rather than delay it. This is crucial to assist America's first responders, including local fire, EMS and police officials, in their efforts to save lives.

As the port security bill moves forward, it is critical that the compromise reflected in this important public safety amendment be maintained. I appreciate the assurances made by the managers to protect this important compromise. All Americans deserve the very best emergency response system. This amendment now helps accomplish that goal.

Mr. President, earlier today the President visited Capitol Hill for a closed-door meeting with House Republicans. It is not often the President takes time out of his busy schedule to come to Congress. But to meet only with Republicans is wrong and divisive.

After his closed door meeting, the President talked about working together, in a bipartisan way. His walk does not match his talk. I wish he would act as a uniter and work with all of us on behalf of all Americans. Regrettably, it appears that, once again, this President has chosen to act in a partisan way in his role as Republican-in-Chief. That is wrong.

I hope that all Senators will recognize their responsibility to all Americans and exercise their best independent judgment, rather than taking orders from the head of their political party.

In the Judiciary Committee yesterday, Senators did exercise that kind of independent judgment when we joined together in a bipartisan way to report a bipartisan bill that would amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and reign in the Administration's warrantless domestic wiretapping program. That bill, S. 3001, the bill cosponsored by Senator Specter and Senator Feinstein, was the only proposal that drew bipartisan support. I urge the Majority Leader to recognize the merits of that bill and our bipartisan efforts by moving to proceed to that bill when the Senate turns its attention to these matters.

This bipartisan bill was authored by Senator Feinstein, one of the few Senators being briefed on the Presidents program of domestic surveillance without warrants. It is intended to ensure our intelligence community can protect our nation with the necessary court oversight. It will bring the President's program within the law.

It stands in stark contrast to the White House-endorsed bill that grants sweeping authority to the Executive Branch for a program about which we know very little. The Bush-Cheney Administration has refused Congress's requests for information. Since when did Congress become an arm of the Executive Branch? Since when was the Senate reduced to a rubberstamp? Oversight means accountability. Oversight makes Government work better. It prevents abuses and corruption. We need Government to be as competent and accountable as it can be in fighting terrorism.

I have been attempting to clarify the facts and the law relating to the Administration's warrantless wiretapping program since it was first disclosed in December 2005. During the ensuing eight months, we have made numerous efforts to get straight answers from the Administration regarding the nature, scope and purported legal basis of this program. Our efforts were rebuffed by the most flagrant and disrespectful stonewalling of any Administration that I have seen in my 32 years in Congress.

While refusing to answer even our most basic questions about its secret spying program, the Administration claimed that Congress approved the program when it authorized the use of military force in Afghanistan--although Attorney General Gonzales had to admit that this was an ``evolving'' rationale not present at the time Congress considered its action. The Administration claimed that even if they violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the President's powers and their view of the ``unitary executive'' must trump the law and the authority of Congress. Not since the rationalization of Richard Nixon for actions during the White House horrors and Watergate scandal have we heard such a claim. And, of course, the Administration claimed it had all the authority it needed and no new legislation was needed.

The bill the Chairman negotiated with the White House, in my view, contains several fundamental flaws:

The bill makes compliance with FISA entirely optional, and explicitly validates the President's claim that he has unfettered authority to wiretap Americans in the name of national security. In other words, it suggests that FISA is unconstitutional--a claim for which there is no judicial precedent and very little academic support--and invites the President to ignore it.

The bill abandons the traditional, case-by-case review contemplated by FISA and introduces the concept of ``program warrants.'' If that novel concept is constitutional--which I doubt--a single FISA court judge could approve whole programs of electronic surveillance that go far beyond the President's program.

The bill immunizes from prosecution anyone who breaks into a home or office in the United States to search for foreign intelligence information, if he is acting at the behest of the President. I would have thought that electronic surveillance is a large enough area to address in one bill. But apparently, the Administration was unwilling to address electronic surveillance without also reaching for new powers to break into Americans' homes.

We should not grant that kind of blank check to the Executive for a secret program we know little about. Instead, we should consider the bipartisan alternative the Judiciary Committee has endorsed. The Specter-Feinstein bill is an approach that seeks accountability while ensuring tools to mount a strong fight against terrorism.

The Majority Leader has an opportunity to unite the Senate and Americans around this smarter, stronger proposal that will help protect Americans as well as the values that we hold dear as a Nation. I hope that he seizes that opportunity.

On a related note, I was a little surprised to hear the Chairman say earlier today that the Judiciary Committee was forwarding proposed language changes to the War Crimes Act to the Armed Services Committee. I agree with the Chairman that amending the War Crimes Act is a matter in the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, but I am very concerned about the way in which this important issue has come up.

The Chairman announced yesterday in the middle of a special business meeting that the Committee would be discussing a proposal. That was news to me and the other Democratic members of the Committee, who had not seen nor heard of the proposal. The Chairman said that a bill had been distributed Tuesday afternoon, but Democrats were not included in any such distribution.

This is a very serious issue. It certainly requires meaningful review and input from Senators of both parties. It is a subject about which I care a great deal about.

This issue is being considered by the Armed Services Committee. Senator Warner is working with Senator Levin, and all members of that Committee. I understand that they are also consulting with the top military lawyer, who have been ignored by this Administration. I have seen the letters from GEN Powell and GEN Vessey on the importance of upholding our treaty obligation and acting in the best interests of protecting Americans throughout the world.

GEN Powell wrote: The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To refine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk. He speaks from the perspective of a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a former Secretary of State.

GEN Vessey signaled what relaxing our adherence to Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention would do: ``First, it would undermine the moral basis which has generally guided or conduct in war throughout our history. Second, it could give opponents a legal argument for the mistreatment of Americans being held prisoners in time of war.''

I worked hard, along with many others of both parties, to pass the current version of the War Crimes Act. I think the current law is a good law, and the concerns that have been raised about it could best be addressed with minor adjustments, rather than with the sweeping changes suggested here.

In 1996, working with the Department of Defense, Congress passed the War Crimes Act to provide criminal penalties for certain war crimes committed by and against Americans. The next year, again with the Pentagon's support, Congress extended the War Crimes Act to violations of the baseline humanitarian protections afforded by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Both measures were supported by a broad bipartisan consensus, and I was proud to sponsor the 1997 amendments.

The legislation was uncontroversial for a good reason. The purpose and effect of the War Crimes Act as amended was to provide for the implementation of America's commitment to the basic international standards we subscribed to when we ratified the Geneva Conventions in 1955. Those standards are truly universal: They condemn war criminals whoever and wherever they are.

That is a critically important aspect of the Geneva Conventions and our own War Crimes Act. When we are dealing with fundamental norms that define the commitments of the civilized world, we cannot have one rule for us and one for them, however we define ``us'' and ``them.''

I am disturbed by the draft legislation, which seems to narrow the scope of the War Crimes Act to exclude certain violations of the Geneva Conventions and which could have the effect of retroactively immunizing past violations that may have been committed by U.S. personnel.

The narrowing of these definitions have the potential effect of immunizing past war crimes. It also could well prevent us from prosecuting rogues who we all agree were out of line like the soldiers who mistreated prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

Many of the despicable tactics used in Abu Ghraib--the use of dogs, forced nudity, humiliation of various kinds--do not appear to be covered by the narrow definitions this draft would incorporate into the War Crimes Act. If this were the law, and the Abu Ghraib abuses had come to light after the perpetrators left the military, they might not have been brought to justice. The President and the Republican leader have conceded that the conduct at Abu Ghraib was abhorrent, and the perpetrators did need to be brought to justice. I hope the President and Congressional Republicans will not now pass legislation that prevents us from bringing people who commit these same despicable acts to justice.

I recognize the concerns about American servicemen and women or government employees being subjected to prosecutions for conduct that could be seen as ambiguous. I believe the War Crimes Act, as is, would not support prosecutions for conduct that was less than abhorrent. Indeed, to date, the Bush Administration has not brought a single charge pursuant to the War Crimes Act.

I would support amending the War Crimes Act so that only ``serious'' violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions were prosecutable under the War Crimes Act. This fix would address any legitimate fears without creating a list of covered conduct that excludes much of the conduct that is most troubling.

Let me be clear. There is no problem facing us about overzealous use of the War Crimes Act by prosecutors. In fact, as far as I can tell, the Ashcroft Justice Department and the Gonzales Justice Department have yet to file a single charge against anyone for violation of the War Crimes Act. Not only have they never charged American personnel under the Act, they have never used it to charge terrorists either.

The President and the Congress should not be in the business of immunizing people who have broken the law, made us less safe, turning world opinion against us, and undercutting our treaty obligations in ways that encourage others to ignore the protections those treaties provide to Americans. We should be very careful about any changes we make.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to congratulate The Hospitality and Information Service, THIS, of Washington, DC, on its 45th anniversary. Since 1961 THIS volunteers have welcomed diplomats and their families to Washington, providing friendship, assistance and an understanding of Washington and the United States.

THIS is a nonprofit organization that was established in 1961 at the suggestion of Angie Biddle, then Chief of Protocol, to help the hundreds of newly arrived diplomats and their families adjust to Washington. In 1961 there were 101 Embassies with 1,200 diplomatic families. Today embassies total more than 170 with 4,000 diplomats and families in Washington. THIS' 400 volunteers provide a variety of services and programs to help diplomats and their families learn about Washington through English and seven foreign language conversation groups and a book club. Programs include forums for discussion of issues that are world-wide in scope, such as health, human rights and education. They also conduct programs on government affairs, performing arts, architecture and American history.

THIS plays an important role in welcoming foreign diplomats to Washington and has made a difference in the lives of diplomats from many countries. As just a few have said:

``I would like to thank THIS for the wonderful work that you do and for your warm and friendly attention.'' Miriam Barak--Israel

``I express both my pleasure and my gratitude to the THIS organization as a whole. THIS is a wonderful vehicle by which the best of America is portrayed. Such an organization can only be an influential force for good.'' Ann Robinson--Great Britain

``THIS is a fantastic organization. It makes me feel very welcomed and comfortable . . . THIS has given me better understanding of the U.S. life and society and also given me some new good American friends.'' Ingela Beiming--Sweden

``THIS is a window that opens Washington for us and lets us experience and know it. It opens opportunities to meet different people.'' Marilia Bulhoes--Brazil

Congratulations to THIS and its volunteers on 45 years of service to the diplomatic community.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from California. I have had a chance to work with the Senator on this amendment. It is an extremely important amendment. I have spent decades on the question of landmines. We use the Leahy War Victims Fund in parts of the world to aid landmine victims. I have visited these field hospitals. I have seen the damage, usually to children, overwhelmingly to civilians. My wife is a registered nurse. She has gone into the surgeries and watched the amputations.

The problem of cluster bombs which maim and kill the innocent has been known for many years. Probably one of the most egregious examples was in Laos, where millions of the explosives were dropped by U.S. planes during the Vietnam war. Unfortunately, what happens with landmines, the war ends, the landmines stay. The peace treaties are signed and civilians continue to die; 30 years after those were dropped there are horrific casualties of civilians.

I have urged the Pentagon both in Democratic and Republican administrations to address this problem for nearly a decade. While they have acknowledged the problem, and they do acknowledge it, they have not taken effective steps to solve it.

We have used massive numbers of cluster munitions in the invasion of Iraq, including in densely inhabited areas. Civilians paid the price and continue to pay the price.

Israel used these weapons in Lebanon. Again, it has been innocent civilians who have suffered disproportionately.

Now, cluster munitions, like any weapon, of course, have military utility. They can be effective against armor or military infrastructure, but they are in effect indiscriminate because they scatter thousands of lethal bomblets over wide areas. There are many weapons that can be effective. Used right, I suppose, poison gas is effective, but we have banned it since World War I. We have urged other countries to ban it.

On these cluster munitions, between 1 and 40 percent, depending on the type or the condition of the terrain, fail to explode on contact. Remember, there are thousands of these coming down. So if anywhere from even 1 percent fail, and as high as 40 percent fail, they remain as hazardous duds indefinitely, no different than scattering landmines, something we do not do.

And those who come in contact with them activate them. That could very well be a child out walking to school. It can be someone playing. It can be someone going to tend their animals, their crops, and they end up with lifelong disfigurement or disability, often death.

No one argues it is possible to completely avoid civilian casualties in a war.

Such casualties are inevitable. They have been tragic consequences in all wars. But this amendment should not be necessary. Weapons that are so disproportionately hazardous to civilians should be subject to strict rules of engagement.

The Feinstein-Leahy amendment is fully consistent with the laws of war and international humanitarian law. It uses the same standard as for incendiary weapons, which are also notoriously hazardous to civilians. Rather than prohibit cluster munitions, the amendment says only that they should not be used where there are concentrations of civilians.

This is a moral issue and it is an issue of our own self interest. Using or selling weapons that are so indiscriminate, without strict rules of engagement, is immoral. It is immoral. Anyone who has seen the horrific consequences of children with an arm or a leg blown off, or a part of their face, or their lifeless body cut to pieces by the shrapnel, knows that.

But it is also contrary to our own interest to be using or selling weapons which, without strict controls on their use, cause such appalling casualties of

innocent people who are not the enemy. It fuels anger and resentment we can ill afford among the very people whose support we need.

So again I commend the Senator from California and strongly support the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article from USA Today, dated December 11, 2003, about cluster bombs be printed in the Record.

If the Senator will yield, after the Senator from Pennsylvania uses whatever period of time he wants, or yields to another, there is half an hour available to the Senator from Vermont; is that correct?

Madam President, I concur with the senior Senator from Pennsylvania and will support the President's nominee in this case. I mention that at the outset to advise Senators on this side of the aisle.

I also welcome the distinguished Senator back from his trip. It sounds like it was a substantial trip. I spent August in Vermont, a matter of no great sacrifice I must say, but nevertheless a very busy month.

That made me think, Madam President, when we returned today from recess, we have less than 4 weeks remaining in this legislative session. With so little time remaining, I hope we can join to make real progress on the issues that have languished unresolved, the real issues that matter most to the American people. We spend a lot of time talking about issues that really do not matter to the American people and ignoring those issues that do.

I urge the administration and the Republican leadership of the House and Senate to recognize the failures that have set us back as a nation. We are ready to work together to rectify those failures.

Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney struck the absolute wrong note when they recently labeled as ``appeasers'' the majority of Americans who recognize the disastrous war in Iraq as distracting them from winning the war on terror. Basically, they are saying anyone who questions their mistakes or points out their mistakes is nearly treasonous. My God, we have not heard talk like that since the days of King George. And that led to the revolution that made us a country.

Again, this week, the Democratic leadership reached out to the President on this important issue. Rather than name-calling and seeking to divide Americans, rather than fostering fear and seeking to scare Americans into staying the disastrous course on which the Government remains headed, I urge Republican leaders to join to fight a smarter war on terror so we can make America safer.

The cronyism, the incompetence that brought us the devastating aftermath of Hurricane Katrina cannot continue to define Government action. With more Americans in poverty, and extreme poverty, with more children without health care, we must do better. America can do better.

With rising interest rates, rising mortgage rates, rising health care costs, rising insurance costs, we must do better for America's working families. America can do better.

While corporate profits have taken a greater and greater share of our gross national product, wages are stagnant. Those in charge refuse to allow a long overdue raise to the minimum wage. We have just come through a summer of record-high gas prices. For many families, the threat of record-high home heating prices this winter is around the corner. Yet this will be another year in which this administration will not raise the minimum wage.

As we approach the fifth anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001, we are more aware of the painful failure of the Federal Government in neglecting to protect the Nation from those attacks. September 11 could have been avoided. Our Government dropped the ball. We did not protect the Nation. In these last 5 years, the administration's decision to send hundreds of thousands of Americans into Iraq, diverting attention and resources from the hunt for Osama bin Laden and the fight against al-Qaida--those loom largest among the many mistakes they have made which have created a more dangerous and threatening world.

How sad, how discouraging, how needless, and how ominous it has been the past 5 years to see the national and international unity we had after those horrific attacks squandered by this administration's crass politics, their arrogant unilateralism, their misguided policies.

It was around the time of the second anniversary of September 11 that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld put his finger

on a key question in the fight against terrorism, when he asked whether we were creating or eliminating more terrorists through our actions. There can now be little doubt about the honest answer to the question about the actions taken by this administration over the last 5 years. Does anyone doubt the impact of the occupation of Iraq, the images from Abu Ghraib, the international scandal at Guantanamo, and the war profiteering by huge defense contractors?

Our own State Department, the Bush State Department, had to revise its reports on international terrorism in order to reflect a more honest assessment of the growing incidence of terrorism violence.

Hamas and Hezbollah are winning elections, as are hardliners in Iran and elsewhere throughout the Middle East. We see American soldiers, brave American soldiers, trapped in the sectarian violence in Iraq. We see the situation every day in Afghanistan deteriorating.

Meanwhile, we have lost precious time to confront growing threats from Iran and North Korea and the Middle East. They are more threatening than any time in recent memory.

The administration resisted recent efforts to examine what led to the tragic events of September 11. The administration does not want the rubberstamp Congress to ask them what they did, why they allowed September 11 to happen in the first place.

They resisted the creation of a Department of Homeland Security. They resisted the formation of the 9/11 Commission because they knew it would ask the question: Why did September 11 happen during the Bush administration? And they failed to implement many of the Commission's most important recommendations.

Recently, President Bush held a press conference. He conceded what we all know: Iraq had ``nothing'' to do with the attack on the World Trade Center. Then he skipped quickly over the main reason we went into Iraq; namely, his erroneous contention that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

A growing roster of conservative Republicans, from William Buckley on, is now acknowledging the failure of this administration's strategy in Iraq.

Even as sectarian violence has continued to grow among Iraqis, as the losses it causes to America continue to mount, the administration tolerates no criticism or, worse yet, listens to no new perspectives on a deteriorating situation. They stubbornly insist: Stay on this uncorrected course for another 2\1/2\ years--this from a President who, when he first ran for office, told our country he was against nation building and against foreign military antagonists.

It is difficult to come together and to move forward when the administration will not acknowledge that its historic miscalculations that led to the current situation. When they are not ignoring the past, they simply excuse it. The excuses for their failures are mockingly the same.

In May 2002, the then-National Security Adviser, now Secretary of State, said:

I don't think anybody could have predicted that these

people would take an airplane and slam it into the World

Trade Center . . . that they would try to use an airplane as

a missile.

Of course, that was not true. The 9/11 Commission showed how the Bush administration had received many of the September 11 warnings that that was exactly what they were going to do.

In September 2005, President Bush responded to the destruction of New Orleans by saying:

I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees.

Of course, that was wrong. Of course, local papers and others had discussed this hurricane disaster scenario and others for years. It was predicted.

And earlier this summer, Vice President Cheney said about Iraq:

I don't think anybody anticipated the level of violence

that we've encountered.

And a military spokesman said:

I don't think anyone could have anticipated the sectarian

violence.

Of course, neither of these statements was accurate since sectarian violence was a known risk. It was even a predicted risk from the outset. It is one of the reasons so many opposed going there in the first place.

Just as this administration's justification for U.S. involvement in Iraq continued to shift from one to the next, its excuses ring hollow when they refuse to acknowledge their errors and instead claim infallibility. ``Just trust us'' long ago proved its failure as a Bush administration policy.

Ours is the strongest military in the world, but there are limits to military power. That military power and resources must never be squandered. Many people who have actively served in the military knew that. The President's father knew that. General Powell knew that. President Eisenhower, the military hero of World War II, a Republican President, knew that.

Unfortunately, this administration, thousands of lives later, hundreds of billions of dollars later, is just beginning to learn it in what has proven to be a disaster of historic proportions.

Imagine how different our situation would be today if we had not shifted our lead forces from Afghanistan to Iraq at the critical moment when we had Osama bin Laden cornered, when we were about to find him. What if the President had done what we unanimously asked him to do, go get Osama bin Laden, the man who engineered September 11. We had him on the run. We let him go, and we went into a futile war in Iraq.

In the years since then, the Iraq war has stretched our military to the breaking point. It has sapped hundreds of millions of dollars and preoccupied our attention. The White House has even disbanded the intelligence unit that for a year was dedicated to tracking down Osama bin Laden. All those nations that were on our side after September 11, 2001, now do not support us.

What have we done? A diversion to Iraq has only succeeded in creating a new breeding ground for terrorists and in emboldening the rogue states to harbor and supply them. Starting this unnecessary war in Iraq did not make us more secure, it has made us less secure. And worse yet, the Bush administration allowed Osama bin Laden to escape.

We need to adjust our course in order to effectively confront the threat of terrorism. We do not need excuses and name calling. We need honesty and determination. We need not just conventional military might but better intelligence, stronger alliances, repaired alliances, and better information sharing. We need to use our resources for homeland security, to protect our ports, our planes, our industrial plants, and our vital resources.

Let us function as a constitutional democracy and act within a moral framework and legitimate legal rules. Let us be that democratic model to the world that America often has been and should be today. Let us show the strength and resolve of a free people, not a fearful people. Let us set a new direction to counterterrorism on our own terms, with American skill and with American values.

This summer we expressed our gratitude to British authorities for disrupting a plot that reportedly endangered the citizens of both our countries. That episode and the fifth anniversary, next week, of the attacks of 9/11 are reminders there is little margin for error in countering terrorism.

We need to refocus our attention and resources from the divisions that plague Iraq to eliminating the misdirection and mismanagement that still diverts us from an effective international strategy to protect the American people from terrorism. We need to be smarter and stronger to make America safer. We can do better. America can do better.

For almost 5 years since the Government failed to protect us from 9/ 11, Bush administration officials in charge of security have been saying it is not a question of whether al-Qaida will attack us again but when. We need to do better. We need to do better. We should look at the mistakes that allowed 9/11 to happen. We should look at the colossal mistake that allowed Osama bin Laden to escape. We as America need to do better.

Mr. President, how much time remains to the Senator from Vermont?

Mr. President, I do not see others on the floor seeking recognition, so let me continue.

The full agenda before us, as we enter the final weeks of this legislative session, reflects how little this Republican

leadership has accomplished, even when it has control of the White House, a Republican President, rubberstamp Republican leadership in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

We have had a steady course of misguided priorities, including weeks--weeks--spent on constitutional amendments designed to restrict Americans' rights and the misuse of Congress's time and authority to interfere in court battles over the medical treatment of Terri Schiavo. These distractions have done nothing to help our country but instead cost Americans progress on real issues that matter most.

These failures to focus on our real priorities have left America less secure. I look forward to a representative Congress that focuses on the Nation's real priorities. For example, the Republican-controlled Congress has yet to enact a Federal budget; this notwithstanding that the law required them to do it by April 15 of this year. The Republican leadership of the House and Senate decided to ignore the law and not pass one.

We have passed but one appropriations bill, and we are required by law to pass 13. We have yet to reconcile and enact lobbying reform and ethics legislation. We have yet to deal with the skyrocketing cost of gasoline and health care. We have yet to reconcile and enact a bipartisan and comprehensive immigration reform bill. And the press reports today that the Republican leadership has decided they will not do that. And for the second year in a row, the Republican-led Senate will not even take up the annual intelligence authorization bill so we could vote up or down, even though they have a majority in their own party here.

As we commemorated the 1-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina last week, we were reminded that the situation in the gulf coast remains a tragedy with serious human consequences. We need to commit ourselves and our resources to helping our fellow citizens who are still in need after the appalling lack of responsiveness by this administration. We need to provide the assistance to that region of our country where rubble remains a fixture of the landscape 1 year later. We are spending tens of millions--hundreds of millions--storing trailers that will never be used. Some contractors have made billions, but people remain homeless. This is our Department of Homeland Security that is supposed to be able to react at a moment's notice if we have a danger. Here, even though they were given days of warning, they did not react. And when they did, it was one fumble after another, while the administration gave statements saying: Everything is under control. It reminds me of the President standing on the aircraft carrier saying: Mission accomplished.

But not just the residents of the Gulf Coast who cannot return to homes or return to jobs, all Americans have to prepare for the threat of an avian flu pandemic so we do not see the repeat of last winter, when the Government was unprepared for a typical winter flu season. Mr. President, throughout your lifetime and my lifetime, every single year--every single year--we have had a flu season. And last year the administration acted surprised that we had a flu season. We should take action to preserve and improve rather than pollute the environment. Protecting our environment has become a pressing issue that has public safety and serious health consequences for all Americans, today and tomorrow. That demands immediate attention.

We cannot ignore the destruction already wrought by the administration's ill-advised, head-in-the-sand policies. We have to provide resources that our returning veterans need at home. We spend hundreds of millions of dollars for health care facilities in Iraq that will never be used. Yet we are cutting back on health care facilities in America that our veterans need. America can do better. We spend hundreds of millions of dollars, ostensibly, to build schools in Iraq that will never be used, and our schools in America are falling apart without money for them. We can spend hundreds of millions of dollars for law enforcement in Iraq, law enforcement that has proven particularly ineffective, and, at the same time, we are cutting millions of dollars for law enforcement in America, while our crime rates skyrocket. America can do better.

The Senate can make progress, but it has to work together. Today, we consider the nomination of Kimberly Ann Moore for a lifetime appointment to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the weeks before the recess, we confirmed several nominees to the Nation's important circuit courts.

Working together, the Senate confirmed two circuit nominees and two Federal trial court nominees in a matter of minutes in one afternoon. That, I might point out, is the kind of progress we can make when the President nominates qualified, consensus nominees.

When she is confirmed, Ms. Moore will be the 7th circuit court nominee and the 30th judge overall confirmed this year. Compare this with those left unconfirmed in the 1996 congressional session, when Republicans controlled the Senate and they stalled the nominations of President Clinton. And in that year, Republicans would not confirm a single appellate court judge--not one. Here, today, we will have our seventh appellate court judge. I think of the 61--61--judges of President Clinton who were pocket filibustered by a Republican- controlled Senate.

I think of the irony that in the 17 months of President Bush's term in office when the Democrats controlled the Senate, we actually confirmed President Bush's judges faster than has been done under a Republican-controlled Senate. You would not know that from the speeches that are made.

But today is a day to congratulate Ms. Moore on her confirmation. I hope she will be the kind of judge who will apply the law fairly and protect the rights of all litigants appearing in her courtroom. There are some superb people on that court. I think of such people as Judge Richard Linn. He should be a model for her as to the kind of judge this Nation deserves. He is one of the more senior members of that court. That is the kind of person I hope she will emulate.

Mr. President, how much time remains to the Senator from Vermont?

Mr. President, of course, again, I will yield the floor if somebody else seeks time.

I do not mean this in an unfair way because the distinguished Presiding Officer, of course, is not allowed to speak. I commend him. He comes from a wonderful State. It has been my privilege to visit there. I suspect it is a lot like Vermont. You have a chance to go into these small towns and cities, to go to county fairs and meet people. I have known the Presiding Officer to be a very accessible person when he was a Governor, when he was a member of the Cabinet, and now as a Senator. I try to do the same thing in my own State.

During this past month, I have gone all over the State of Vermont. I have talked to people. I have attended funerals of brave soldiers killed in Iraq from Vermont. Vermont has lost more soldiers per capita than any other State in the country. And it is interesting, in a small State such as ours, as to the people you see at these funerals, everybody knows everybody else. I walk out and I see people whom I went to grade school with or people who knew my parents or I knew them or their families. We are there, and the other Members of the congressional delegation, the Governor, and nobody goes by a title. Our adjutant general is usually referred to as Mike. I am called Pat. There is Jim and Bernie and so on.

We're a very proud State. We're a very patriotic State. We're a very honest State. We're the 14th State in the Nation, and we have answered the call. People wonder if maybe the call has been distorted this time. They wonder what this war does for our security. As I said earlier, I believe it has made us less secure as a nation, not more secure. They wonder where the failures were in Government that allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place. And, of course, as more information has come out, it could have been avoided, should have been avoided, should have been avoided. And they wonder if the lessons have been learned about that.

They see Homeland Security that should be able to respond to any emergency, even that on a second's notice, and yet they see that it failed to respond to Katrina there was all kinds of

notice. They see Republicans and Democrats joined together saying: Go get Osama bin Laden. And the administration does not get Osama bin Laden. Instead, they divert those forces to go into Iraq in a war we did not need and one that has made us less secure. They even disbanded the special intelligence unit that has been tracking Osama bin Laden.

But worse yet--and I heard this from Republicans and Democrats alike in my State--when the Secretary of Defense and others in the administration say if you raise questions, if you point out their mistakes, somehow you are aiding the enemy, however defined, that you are not being patriotic. I am reminded to paraphrase Mark Twain. He said: Love your country. Question your Government.

A lot of people in my State--Republicans and Democrats--say there is a great deal to question today.

I hope they will continue to do so. I hope they will never fail to do so. I hope that those people who have the audacity in America--the freest democracy on Earth--that those leaders in our Government who have the audacity to question the patriotism of Americans who question their mistakes will themselves be quiet and leave--leave the stage.

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

Mr. President, Senator Bond and I have amendment No. 4827. I ask consent the pending amendment be set aside and it be in order to call up that amendment.

I will be brief on amendment No. 4827. This is an amendment that the distinguished senior Senator from Missouri and I filed yesterday. It guarantees that $2.4 billion of the $13 billion included in the managers' package on Tuesday for the Army and Marine Corps be allocated for National Guard equipment. It does not add any money. It ensures that the promises that have already been made to the Guard about funding will be fulfilled and, also, of course, make sure we have a much needed infusion of equipment to the National Guard.

It follows an amendment that Senator Bond and I introduced last September to the Fiscal Year 2006 Defense

Appropriations, in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. We realized, with the significant shortfalls in equipment available to the Guard at home for use in such natural disasters or other domestic emergencies, if, God forbid, we had another such tragedy, the Guard would not have had enough trucks, tractors, and communication gear across the country to adequately respond.

The problem then--and still is--that much of their equipment has been left in Iraq, where the National Guard has been indispensable.

Since the start of the war in Iraq, Guard units have deployed with their gear and then, after a year, they have left this gear for use by other units arriving in Iraq. Worse still, the National Guard has consistently been underfunded, leaving it with well less than the required equipment stocks.

These low levels of equipment threaten the Guard's ability to carry out the two critical prongs of its dual mission.

Two days ago, the top National Guard LTG Steven Blum, reported that more than two-thirds of the Army National Guard's 34 brigades are not combat ready, due largely to vast equipment shortfalls.

Almost a year after Katrina, the Department of Defense leadership-- which is ultimately responsible for monitoring the Guard's capabilities--has yet to recognize this clear problem, let alone to develop a real funding plan to deal with the problem.

The $900 million included in last year's, Defense appropriations bill was only the beginning of addressing this major problem with shortfalls--a problem that General Blum himself estimates to total nearly $21 billion.

Congress has no choice but to act. That is why this amendment takes another step toward addressing the Guard's response capabilities at home. It adds $2.4 billion on top of the funding in the regular bill and bridge supplemental for the Guard to procure equipment--for items as diverse as remanufactured tanks, radios, medium-sized trucks, and command-and-control systems.

I would like to commend Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, who were able to identify almost $340 million in National Guard and Reserve equipment in the committee markup of the baseline Defense bill. That number shows the enormous support that exists within the Defense Subcommittee, especially when the Senate Defense allocation was $9 billion below that set in the House of Representatives.

On behalf of our Guard units, our Guard members, and of all Americans who so acutely rely on their steadfast readiness and service, I urge my colleagues to vote now for a much-needed, higher level for the Guard.

This problem is so pressing and so severe that we cannot afford to lose momentum.

I just mention again, 2 days ago the top National Guard General, LTG Steven Blum, reported that more than two-thirds of the Army National Guard's 34 brigades are not combat ready.

We really have no choice but to act. This will not even begin to handle the problems, but it will be a good start.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add, after Senator Bond's name and my name, Senator Menendez of New Jersey and Senators Lincoln, Dodd, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Dorgan, Mikulski, Harkin, Rockefeller, Baucus, and Jeffords as cosponsors.

Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished chairman of the National Guard Caucus, who has labored indefatigably in this area, calling on his experience not only as a U.S. Senator but especially his experience when he was Governor and commander in chief of the Guard in his own State.

Mr. President, the Senator is absolutely right. The Senator from Missouri is right.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the senior Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 4827 to the fiscal year 2007 Defense appropriations bill that is already adopted.

I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Michigan to provide $200 million in emergency humanitarian and reconstruction aid to Lebanese and Israeli civilians affected by the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel.

I commend Senator Stabenow for this amendment. If this conflict and the terrible loss of innocent lives and destruction of civilian infrastructure in Lebanon and Israel had occurred three months ago when we were debating the fiscal year 2006 emergency supplemental, there would have been no question that we would have included this aid.

To date, the U.S. Government has pledged $30 million in humanitarian aid to Lebanon. While welcome, this is only a tiny fraction of what is needed.

Over 900,000 Lebanese citizens--one in five--have fled their homes and are either displaced in Lebanon, living in schools and public buildings, or are refugees in Syria. Estimates are that 200,000 people are in immediate need of humanitarian aid including food, water, fuel, shelter and medical care.

Basic goods are in short supply and hospitals in the south of Lebanon are facing electricity and water shortages. Just getting access to people who are in the greatest need has been a difficult challenge for relief organizations.

The United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross have been doing their best to evacuate people and deliver medical supplies, shelter materials, and food to affected people in southern Lebanon.

Current estimates are that at least $300 million will be needed in the next 3 months to meet their basic needs.

The international community has pledged assistance, but if past practice is any indicator, pledges often do not turn into actual contributions.

This additional $200 million in humanitarian and reconstruction aid would demonstrate the commitment of the United States to help the innocent victims on both sides of this conflict.

The funds should be used by USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance and the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, which have already depleted much of their available funds and without this amendment will be forced to rob funds that are needed to respond to other humanitarian disasters--in Darfur, the Horn of Africa, and elsewhere.

I thank the Senator from Michigan for offering this amendment and urge its adoption.

Mr. President, one week ago, I stood behind President Bush as he signed the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 into law. The President gave a short speech about the importance of the legislation and his commitment to defending it. He even distributed a letter to all those in attendance celebrating this reauthorization. In his letter he acknowledged that ``further work remains in the fight against injustice, and each generation has a responsibility to write a new chapter in the unfinished story of freedom.'' I ask unanimous consent to insert his letter into the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Keeping the Voting Rights Act intact is important, but enforcing it is equally important. Now that Congress has passed the law--and the President has signed it--it is up to the President to ensure that this law and all of its provisions are enforced fully and faithfully. I was pleased last Thursday to hear the President commit to aggressive enforcement and to defend the Act from legal attacks. Article I of the Constitution provides for the Congress to write the laws, and Article II provides for the President to enforce them. Congress has done its part, and now the President must do his. I commended him for saying that he will.

Last week I spoke to the Senate about a letter I had sent to the President in which I urged him not to follow his usual practice of signing a bill with his fingers crossed behind his back and later issuing a presidential signing statement undercutting the law that Congress passed. I return today to report to the Senate that, to the best of my knowledge, the President has accepted that advice and has not issued an after-the-fact signing statement. I thank the President for following this course. In fact, the material posted on the White House website includes a ``fact sheet'' in which the White House reaffirms the President's commitment ``to vigorously enforce the provisions of the law and to defend it in court.''

The Voting Rights Act is the keystone in the foundation of civil rights laws and is one of the most important methods of protecting all Americans' foundational right to vote. Several generations have kept the chain of support for the Voting Rights Act unbroken, and now we have once again done our part to continue that legacy and revitalize the Act.

We know that effective enforcement of these provisions is vital in fighting against discrimination that, unfortunately, still exists in this nation today. As the President has acknowledged, the wound is not healed and there is more to do to protect the rights of all Americans to vote and have their votes count.

I also note for the record that today, two weeks after final passage of the House bill to reauthorize and revitalize the Voting Rights Act, and one week after the President signed that historic legislation into law, copies of Senate Report 109-295 have finally been printed. This is the committee report on S.2703 that I commented on during my statement to the Senate on July 27. It contains the objection of all eight Democratic members of the committee. As previously noted, it is unusual in that it does not represent the views of a majority of the committee and certainly does not represent the views of the Democratic sponsors of that Senate legislation.

Exhibit 1

The White House,

Washington, July 27, 2006.

I send greetings to those celebrating the reauthorization

of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The Voting Rights Act is one of the most important pieces

of legislation in our Nation's history. It has been vital to

guaranteeing the right to vote for generations of Americans

and has helped millions of our citizens enjoy the full

promise of freedom. By refusing to give in to discrimination

and segregation, heroes of the Civil Rights Movement called

our country back to its founding ideals of freedom and

opportunity for everyone. Leaders like Martin Luther King,

Jr., and Thurgood Marshall believed in the constitutional

guarantees of liberty and equality and trusted their fellow

Americans to do the right thing to ensure these blessings for

every man, woman, and child.

Over the years, our Nation has grown more prosperous and

powerful, and it has also grown more equal and just. Yet,

further work remains in the fight against injustice, and each

generation has a responsibility to write a new chapter in the

unfinished story of freedom. Reauthorizing this legislation

is an example of our continued commitment to a united America

where every person is valued and treated with dignity and

respect.

America is grateful for the sacrifices of citizens such as

Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King, after

whom the bill reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act was named.

I also appreciate the members of the House and Senate for

passing this historic legislation. By working together, we

can help build an America that lives up to our guiding

principle that all men and women are created equal.

Laura and I send our best wishes on this special occasion.

George W. Bush.

Mr. President, the Senate is about to adjourn for its August recess--4 weeks when we get to reconnect with our constituents, catch up on the concerns of our home States, and study our legislative plans with a depth and attention that we cannot devote during the hectic days we are in session. Some of us may even spend a little time with our families and friends. As I have done in years past, I will be in Vermont. The choice between spending August in Washington, DC, or Middlesex, VT, has always been an easy one for me.

When the Senate is in session, our obligations are many and varied, as important as they are diverse. We hold hearings, and then we pursue followup questions. We try to engage in oversight, though that has not been a particularly fruitful exercise with this current administration. We investigate issues, and then we endeavor to craft solutions. We vote and we caucus and we deliberate.

It is not always a process that yields results, but today I can report it has. I am pleased to join with the chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee today in introducing a bipartisan bill on patent reform. The bill is the result of almost 2 years of hard work on hard issues. We held several hearings, had innumerable meetings with a universe of interested participants in the patent system, and received input from a number of voices in debate about patent reform. We delved deeply into the myriad problems plaguing our patent system, especially those that hinder the issuance of high-quality patents.

In introducing this bill together, we take a productive step toward updating the most outdated aspects of the patent code and attempt to bolster the Patent and Trademark Office in its administrative review of patents throughout the process. We are striving to place incentives on the parties with the most information to assist the PTO by sharing that information. We place our patent system in line with much of the rest of the world, by moving from a ``first-to-invent'' system to a ``first- to-file.''

Congress needs to address the urgent needs for revision and renewal in our patent system, and we must harness the impressive intellectual power and varied experiences of all the players in the patent community as we finalize our new laws. I believe that, while introducing this bill today is not the end of the process--and indeed, in many respects, it is truly the beginning--it is a significant accomplishment that we have come together to set down a comprehensive approach to overhauling our patent system. If the United States is to preserve its position at the forefront of innovation, as the global leader in intellectual property and technology, then we need to move forward, and this bill is our first step. We must improve and enhance the quality of our patent system and the patents it produces.

This legislation is not an option but a necessity. Senator Hatch and I have made genuine progress on this complex issue. We agreed on many salutary changes, but it can be no surprise that we differed on some aspects of the effort as well. Recognizing the critical importance of compromise, of offering a bill to the interested public to study and improve, and of taking a clear first step down the path to genuine reform, we both made concessions. This is not the bill I would have introduced if I were the sole author, and I expect Senator Hatch would say the same. I appreciate the concessions that Senator Hatch made. I have tried to be both reasonable and accommodating in honoring my commitment to him--a commitment that he requested specifically--to introduce a bill before the August recess.

In particular, I am concerned about how some of the changes proposed would affect the generic pharmaceutical industry, especially the provision that would limit the ``inequitable conduct'' defense to only those cases in which a patentee's willful deception of the PTO results in an invalid patent claim. While I think we should expect the highest caliber of behavior by those who are seeking patents--which are, after all, often highly profitable government monopolies--surely we can at

least insist on an absence of affirmative deceit. I hope and expect that we can continue the discussion on this issue as the year progresses.

I also want to ensure the delicate balance we have struck in the post-grant review process and make certain that the procedure is both efficient and effective at thwarting some strategic behavior in patent litigation and at promoting a healthier body of existing patents. Fee- shifting, even in a limited set of cases, likewise raises concerns that should have a more public airing.

I respect the necessity for considering and balancing a number of different concerns as we draft comprehensive and complicated legislation. I will never sacrifice the quality of the laws we produce to expediency, but I recognize the utility of such compromises when, as with this bill, introduction is a first step in a larger and longer discussion.

I am extremely pleased that Senator Hatch and I have come together to tackle these important and urgent issues. Many hours of hard work were spent by both of our offices to develop legislative language so that we can, today, jointly introduce a bill to move the debate forward. The bill is a remarkable achievement and a substantial step toward real reform. I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Hatch, other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the affected parties on these matters.

Mr. President, the Senate is about to adjourn for its August recess--4 weeks when we get to reconnect with our constituents, catch up on the concerns of our home States, and study our legislative plans with a depth and attention that we cannot devote during the hectic days we are in session. Some of us may even spend a little time with our families and friends. As I have done in years past, I will be in Vermont. The choice between spending August in Washington, DC, or Middlesex, VT, has always been an easy one for me.

When the Senate is in session, our obligations are many and varied, as important as they are diverse. We hold hearings, and then we pursue followup questions. We try to engage in oversight, though that has not been a particularly fruitful exercise with this current administration. We investigate issues, and then we endeavor to craft solutions. We vote and we caucus and we deliberate.

It is not always a process that yields results, but today I can report it has. I am pleased to join with the chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee today in introducing a bipartisan bill on patent reform. The bill is the result of almost 2 years of hard work on hard issues. We held several hearings, had innumerable meetings with a universe of interested participants in the patent system, and received input from a number of voices in debate about patent reform. We delved deeply into the myriad problems plaguing our patent system, especially those that hinder the issuance of high-quality patents.

In introducing this bill together, we take a productive step toward updating the most outdated aspects of the patent code and attempt to bolster the Patent and Trademark Office in its administrative review of patents throughout the process. We are striving to place incentives on the parties with the most information to assist the PTO by sharing that information. We place our patent system in line with much of the rest of the world, by moving from a ``first-to-invent'' system to a ``first- to-file.''

Congress needs to address the urgent needs for revision and renewal in our patent system, and we must harness the impressive intellectual power and varied experiences of all the players in the patent community as we finalize our new laws. I believe that, while introducing this bill today is not the end of the process--and indeed, in many respects, it is truly the beginning--it is a significant accomplishment that we have come together to set down a comprehensive approach to overhauling our patent system. If the United States is to preserve its position at the forefront of innovation, as the global leader in intellectual property and technology, then we need to move forward, and this bill is our first step. We must improve and enhance the quality of our patent system and the patents it produces.

This legislation is not an option but a necessity. Senator Hatch and I have made genuine progress on this complex issue. We agreed on many salutary changes, but it can be no surprise that we differed on some aspects of the effort as well. Recognizing the critical importance of compromise, of offering a bill to the interested public to study and improve, and of taking a clear first step down the path to genuine reform, we both made concessions. This is not the bill I would have introduced if I were the sole author, and I expect Senator Hatch would say the same. I appreciate the concessions that Senator Hatch made. I have tried to be both reasonable and accommodating in honoring my commitment to him--a commitment that he requested specifically--to introduce a bill before the August recess.

In particular, I am concerned about how some of the changes proposed would affect the generic pharmaceutical industry, especially the provision that would limit the ``inequitable conduct'' defense to only those cases in which a patentee's willful deception of the PTO results in an invalid patent claim. While I think we should expect the highest caliber of behavior by those who are seeking patents--which are, after all, often highly profitable government monopolies--surely we can at

least insist on an absence of affirmative deceit. I hope and expect that we can continue the discussion on this issue as the year progresses.

I also want to ensure the delicate balance we have struck in the post-grant review process and make certain that the procedure is both efficient and effective at thwarting some strategic behavior in patent litigation and at promoting a healthier body of existing patents. Fee- shifting, even in a limited set of cases, likewise raises concerns that should have a more public airing.

I respect the necessity for considering and balancing a number of different concerns as we draft comprehensive and complicated legislation. I will never sacrifice the quality of the laws we produce to expediency, but I recognize the utility of such compromises when, as with this bill, introduction is a first step in a larger and longer discussion.

I am extremely pleased that Senator Hatch and I have come together to tackle these important and urgent issues. Many hours of hard work were spent by both of our offices to develop legislative language so that we can, today, jointly introduce a bill to move the debate forward. The bill is a remarkable achievement and a substantial step toward real reform. I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Hatch, other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the affected parties on these matters.