Floor Statements

Mr. President, while the Senate, with the encouragement of a White House in full campaign mode, debates a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage--a debate which will consume days of the Senate's time and is all about scoring political points in an election year--the disaster in Darfur rages on.

It has been nearly 4 weeks since a peace agreement was signed between the Sudanese Government and one of the rebel groups, but violence, hunger and disease continue to claim innocent lives.

Jan Egeland, United Nations Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs, recently described the humanitarian situation in Darfur as being on the verge of collapse.

In the midst of this calamity, the Senate is focused on other matters. Gay marriage. Next it will be flag burning. And then full repeal of the estate tax, to benefit the wealthiest of the wealthy. Solutions in search of a problem, while whole villages burn, their inhabitants are slaughtered, and relief organizations in Darfur struggle to cope without adequate resources.

Between a quarter of a million and half a million people have perished in Darfur--mostly civilians whose villages have been reduced to ashes. Many, who escaped being shot or hacked to death, have died from hunger and disease.

The Sudanese Government has obstructed the deployment of a U.N. peacekeeping force in Darfur. The African Union has done its best, but with only 7,000 troops, inadequate resources, and a weak mandate to patrol a vast area with few roads, it has been unable to provide civilians with the protection they need.

I am so very proud that two high school students in Vermont are setting a moral example for all Americans. Ben Rome and Brian Banks, seniors at Essex High School, outraged over the tragedy that is unfolding half a world away, felt compelled to do something about it. They have organized a public rally in Burlington, VT, for this coming Sunday to bring Vermonters together to speak out about one of the worst human disasters in recent memory. I look forward to joining Ben and Brian and other concerned Vermonters this weekend.

The supplemental appropriations bill for Iraq, Afghanistan, Hurricane Katrina recovery, and Sudan, which should be completed this week--and I hope we can find the time to pass it--contains additional funds to support the current level of peacekeepers in Darfur through the remainder of this year. This will help, but twice that amount is needed.

The supplemental also provides additional funds for food and other humanitarian aid. It should shame the White House and the Congress to reflect on the fact that we know we are not doing enough.

We also provide funds to support a Presidential special envoy for Sudan, to work in pursuit of peace in Darfur and stability throughout Sudan, northern Uganda, and Chad. We need someone of the caliber of Senator Danforth to be working continuously to help solve the Darfur crisis.

A tragedy like this is bigger than any of us as individuals, but it is not too big if we join together in constructive action--as individuals, as private relief organizations, and as nations.

America is a great and good nation with the power to help stop this. But it will take sustained attention, and it will take the efforts of committed citizens like Brian Banks and Ben Rome who, one by one, are opening the world's eyes to a tragedy that must be stopped.

Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Colorado in the Chamber. I am about to propound a unanimous consent request to help start the lineup of people. Was he looking for a chance to speak?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the distinguished Senator from Colorado be recognized for whatever remarks he wishes to make, and then that Senators Johnson and Dorgan be recognized for such comments as they wish to make.

Mr. President, I wish to speak about the amendment presently before us. There has been a lot of speculation in the paper about whether this is on the schedule because of partisan politics. Of course, it is. The Republican leader has decided that today our Nation's most pressing priority is a concern over committed relationships between same sex couples. We have very little time left in this session that we are devoting to an amendment, which will go nowhere, when so many of us are trying to focus on solutions to high gas prices, something that hurts people in your State and mine; or the rising cost of health care, certainly a matter of great interest in my State; the ongoing situation in Iraq, a place where the Bush-Cheney administration told us we would be welcomed as liberators and suggested we would be out of there quickly. We have now been there almost as long as World War II, and the ending to World War II was far more obvious than the ending in Iraq; or strengthening our national security. We are not going to talk about any of those things. I think that is a testament to the misplaced priorities of the Republican leadership. News reports have clearly revealed how this proposed constitutional amendment is being used to satisfy the most extreme right-wing supporters of Republican politicians. I do not believe that Americans are well served by this strategy, a strategy that would divide rather than unite Americans.

The Constitution is too important to be used for such a partisan political purpose. It is too important to make us dividers and not uniters. I agreed with First Lady Laura Bush when she recently told Fox News that this proposed amendment should not ``be used as a campaign tool, obviously.'' Even so, obviously, that is exactly what Karl Rove and others in the Bush-Cheney administration are doing. That is why we only vote on such partisan measures in the run-up to an election. Apparently, high campaign season has arrived on the Republican leader's calendar. Right on the heels of this campaign season bid to amend our Constitution, they are readying yet another constitutional amendment for the floor.

Many people have aptly noted that this amendment would write discrimination into our Nation's Constitution. I agree. That is exactly what we are being asked to spend our time doing this week.

The Republican leadership's strenuous efforts to move this proposed amendment to the Senate floor for debate shows how important it is to the Republican leadership of the Senate to cater to the extreme right- wing and special interest groups agitating for a fight over this issue. They intend to stir up an election year fight and use it as a ``campaign tool'' and a ``political strategy.''

Right now, we should be addressing America's top priorities, including ways to make America safer, the war in Iraq, rising gas prices, rising health care and health insurance costs, stem cell research, or fixing FEMA, an organization that has fallen into almost incomprehensible misuse during this administration, and assisting our veterans whose privacy has been compromised by the neglect of the administration's Veterans' Administration. Maybe we can talk about the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, which is something that affects every State in this country.

Instead, the President's political strategists and Senate allies are doing their best to divide and distract the American people and the Senate from fixing real problems by pressing forward with this controversial proposed constitutional amendment.

As a nation, we are currently facing so many pressing issues, including the continuing sectarian violence in Iraq that is spiraling out of control, with the United States unable to stop it; the stunning investigations of this administration, indictments and convictions for government corruption; or a complicated drug program that has been dropped into the laps of our seniors. We now find it so complicated that it penalizes our seniors. It appears the only ones doing well under the program are the pharmaceutical companies. How about a burgeoning national debt, where a family of four owes well over $100,000 just for the debt run-up by the Bush-Cheney administration? Every time I stop at a gas station and fill up my car, all I hear from people is: When is the Congress going to do something about these historically high gas prices? Of course, the largest theft of private information maintained by the Government was stolen under the Bush- Cheney administration's watch, but we are not asked to debate that problem. We even tried to find some corrective legislation to protect not only our veterans, but now we find we need to protect tens of thousands of Active-Duty personnel from the negligence of this administration. We are not asked to do anything to protect those veterans. No, we have to talk about this constitutional amendment.

The Judiciary Committee has been conducting hearings, but we have yet to get to the bottom of the Bush-Cheney administration's warrantless wiretapping and other programs utilized to gather information on Americans, such as the e-mails on the Web sites we visit and even our conversations among families.

We need to make reauthorizing the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act a priority in the coming months of this season. We still see people that are not allowed to vote in this country because of the color of their skin. We ought to be doing something to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. If we want to hold ourselves up as a moral mirror to the rest of the world, let's talk about things that affect a large part of the population of America.

But no, on the Senate floor, we don't talk about these things, even though we are here to protect the rights of Americans--all Americans-- no matter what color they might be. But instead we are being made to turn again to a divisive measure that will do nothing to correct the weakness in our homeland security, that will do nothing to enact a budget the Republican Congress was supposed to, by law, enact months ago. We will do nothing to stem the rising gas prices. We will do nothing to respond to the most pressing issues facing hard-working Americans.

Some may remember proponents of the Federal marriage amendment in 2004--coincidentally the last election year--could not assemble a majority of Senators to even move to consider the proposed amendment, even though the Republicans controlled the Senate. Remember that in 2004, we were warned immediate action was required to protect the fragile institution of marriage, which was said to be under immediate threat. Of course, the real threats to marriage include adultery and unfaithfulness, desertion, pressures on a marriage that comes from economic stresses, unhappiness, and spousal abuse. Does anybody want to debate those on this floor? No. Would somebody like to put forward a constitutional amendment to tell States they cannot be allowed to have divorce laws? No. What about telling States what ages people can marry? No. That would be interfering with the rights of States. We will do the whole enchilada and tell them we will take over their State legislatures.

Having been told the heavens are falling, we find in the past 2 years, no

States have been forced to recognize same-sex marriages. In fact, several States voted to amend their State Constitutions to define marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act, which we passed, defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman for Federal purposes and prevents any States from being forced to recognize another State's approval of same-sex marriage. That is the law of the land. That bipartisan law has been upheld three times in Federal court. It is under no threat of being overturned. So when the last election year rolled around, we were told there was a crisis, but there never was a crisis then, nor is there now an imminent crisis that demands the diversion of Congress's attention from all of these other urgent problems or that justifies an alteration of our founding document to say that States are no longer the ones in control of marriage. We will set a Federal law to tell the States of Tennessee and Vermont and every other State, we are taking over. Your legislatures can go home.

But unlike the Republican leadership of this Congress and the Bush- Cheney administration, I trust our 50 States to define marriage and the rules of marriage as they always have. I trust our States a lot more than the Republican leadership of this Congress or of the administration.

I am sure we will continue to hear a lot of rhetoric about ``judicial activism'' as the reason why we need to dramatically alter the U.S. Constitution. Even the President in his weekly radio address invoked the notion of ``rogue judges'' that flaunt the law as a justification for this drastic measure. This politically convenient criticism is surprising. It is surprising, considering the fact that the majority of those Federal judges he is so worried about were all appointed by Republican Presidents. He doesn't even trust the judges the Republicans appointed. In fact, any judicial decision that was a dramatic departure from the status quo on this issue would certainly be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where seven of the nine Justices on the Supreme Court were appointed by Republican Presidents. Does anyone believe Chief Justice Roberts is going to preside over a U.S. Supreme Court that will override the law in this regard? And any State can define marriage in their Constitution. When the Republican-controlled Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled that you could have same sex marriage, they made it very clear that the State, of course, could amend their Constitution to change that.

In fact, the proposed Federal marriage amendment, now renamed the Marriage Protection Amendment, would itself produce a wide range of litigation that judges--the very boogeymen that proponents of the proposed amendment demonize, would be required to resolve. It would be the judges--these judges--these judges that the President and the Republican leadership, all of these Republican judges they seem to fear, they are the ones who will be forced to resolve the ambiguities and meanings of these words if they are added to our Constitution.

The proposed language we are being required to consider is exceedingly confusing and subject to interpretation. It is inevitably going to create uncertainty. For example, who would be bound by the provisions of the Marriage Protection Amendment? State actors, private citizens or religious organizations? What would constitute the legal incidents of marriage? Can a legislature pass a civil unions law that mirrors its marriage law, so long as they do not call it marriage? Can the people of a State put protections for civil unions in their State Constitution? What State actors are forbidden from construing their own Constitutions? Are we saying that a State supreme court could not construe its own Constitution or is it the State executive branch officials that couldn't do it as well? We had hearings on these precise language questions, and they were not resolved.

I am particularly concerned about the fate of the Vermont civil unions that have been formed under the color of State law. Despite an initially wrenching debate, our State law remains on the books after 5 years. There has been no ensuing crisis in the lives of Vermont families. In fact, we have one of the lowest divorce rates in the country. But it is not clear to me why this constitutional amendment would render Vermont's law invalid.

I started this afternoon by alluding to my agreement with the recent statements of the First Lady that the Constitution should not be used for political purposes. I agree with her statement, as I agreed with her sense that the President's ``bring it on'' language from the early days of the Iraq occupation was not helpful, and certainly was actually frightening to families who had somebody serving in the gulf. Starting this last weekend we have seen that suddenly the President is involving himself in this effort and is now prepared to endorse a specific constitutional amendment on this divisive topic. I have written President Bush on more than one occasion to ask, OK, if you are going to endorse it, what language? What language would you propose?

In fact, my most recent letter was last month, and I ask unanimous consent that a copy be printed in the Record.

Not surprisingly, those letters have gone unanswered. In fact, the administration didn't even send a representative to any of the committee hearings that the Judiciary Committee had on this amendment, nor did the administration comment on the specifics of the current proposal or respond to questions about its language. The general endorsement of the Bush-Cheney administration has been more in the nature of a political campaign, more of a signal than of substance. We could use a lot more substance up here and a few less signals.

The President's recent statements on Saturday and at the rally today, adjacent to the White House, remain general and vague. After the last campaign and his reelection, the President indicated that he had no intention of including such an amendment among his administration's top priorities. He had no intention of pressing Congress to approve it. Suddenly, we are away from that election, we are approaching another election. Golly gee whiz, what has changed? What has changed in that time? Well, his standing in the public opinion polls, for one; or the agitation of the right-wing elements of his base, which he always responds to.

I remember a time when leaving States in control of issues of family law was an easy decision for Members of both sides of the aisle to make. It is disappointing that Senators would endorse this broadly drafted amendment, which so clearly violates the traditions of Federalism and local control that many in this body have claimed to respect and cherish.

As prominent conservative and former Congressman Bob Barr put it, ``Marriage is a quintessential State issue. The Defense of Marriage Act goes as far as is necessary in codifying the Federal legal status and parameters of marriage. A constitutional amendment is both unnecessary and needlessly intrusive and punitive.''

This reminds me of last year when we were called into emergency session

after highly competent courts had thoroughly reviewed the medical decisions in the Terry Schiavo case. They spent months, even years, doing that. But we were called into emergency session, and the President flew back from his vacation so we could pass in a couple of hours something to overturn all those courts. We even had diagnoses made from the floor of the Senate that she was not in a vegetative state. This is a family tragedy. We should have left it alone instead of grandstanding--grandstanding--on a political issue where we are not about to change anything. The American people saw through that grandstanding. They realized this is something to be left to a family going through a terrible tragedy. As we know, she was in a vegetative state; an irreversible vegetative state.

So I couldn't help but wonder: What has happened to conservatives who would oppose the Federal Government's intrusion on the prerogatives of the States? Where are those Senators on both sides of the aisle who stood up and said: Certain things are reserved to the States and we shouldn't intrude? The States have traditionally set the laws of marriage. That has been a foundational principle in laws pertaining to our families from the beginning of this country. Why this sudden need to change that? Oh, I forgot. We have elections this fall, so we have to have an electioneering issue. The States determine what age you must be in order to marry, whether you have to have your parents' permission and so on. The States have done that. They have done it quite well, and we ought to let them continue doing it.

Most States are going to say marriage is between a man and a woman, as they always have. My own State of Vermont, because of our Constitution, was given a question: Would we support gay marriage in Vermont? My State of Vermont said no. Instead, we have civil unions, which give gay couples legal rights of inheritance and hospital visitation and other prerogatives. We made a pretty sensible decision. But in Judiciary Committee hearings, there is strong disagreement that this constitutional amendment could override Vermont's very sensible decision.

But even beyond that, beyond any parochial thought, as a Senator, I am deeply concerned that this proposal is writing discrimination into the Constitution. For the first time--for the first time in our Nation's history, we would be amending the Constitution to narrow individual rights and to federalize an issue of family law. Well, the senior Senator from Vermont is a conservative when it comes to the Constitution and to conserving the Constitution.

How will this measure affect American families who currently exist in this country whose members seek the protection of civil unions and the acknowledgment of their committed relationships? How will it affect child support enforcement or even inheritance and insurance benefits? I hope those who claim to care about families will turn away from wedge politics and scapegoating and discrimination. Instead, we should join together to work on the many pressing issues already piling up on Congress's agenda--issues we don't take time for, such as health care, gas prices, pensions, Iraq, paying for college education, and raising the minimum wage. Are we so afraid to tackle these real issues which affect all Americans, that we can only attempt to bring up issues that can be used in this fall's elections?

Last month, President Bush spoke eloquently about this country and our values when he spoke about immigration, and I praised the President for his speech. He emphasized something I wish this White House and the Republican leadership in the Congress would keep in mind in connection with their efforts to demonize gay and lesbian Americans. The President said:

We cannot build a unified country by inciting people to

anger, or playing on anyone's fears or exploiting the issue

of--

And here I insert ``marriage'' for ``immigration''--

for political gain.

President Bush continued by saying:

We must always remember that real lives will be affected by

our debates and decisions, and that every human being has

dignity and value. . . .

I agree. My religion taught that, and I believe that every human being has dignity and value. Mean-spirited rhetoric does not serve this Nation or its diverse population. Our Nation would be better served if we refrained from divisiveness that is wielded like a weapon in order to score political and emotional points before an election.

As an American who has been married 44 years, I am a great fan of the institution of marriage. I believe it is important to encourage and to sanction committed relationships, and I respect the people of my State for the careful manner in which they resolved this matter by recognizing civil unions. They recognized, as my predecessor, the senior Senator from Vermont, Robert Stafford, a wonderful quintessential New England Republican, did when he spoke of well over 60 years of marriage. He spoke about how the love of his wonderful wife Helen, made him a better person, and how their committed relationship made him better.

Lower the rhetoric. Those who want to score points for this fall are denigrating people of committed relationships. Senator Stafford was right when he said that people who love make each other better people. Don't we all benefit from that? We have in Vermont. I know I would not have accomplished any of the things I have accomplished in life without the strong support and love of my wife, Marcelle. We have done this for 44 years.

Let's look inward, each of us, to ourselves. Let's make sure we are living our lives the way we should before we tell the rest of the country how to live theirs. And let's be real--the actions in Vermont do nothing to diminish or threaten marriages in Vermont or any other State.

For these reasons, I will continue to oppose measures such as this proposed constitutional amendment. I continue to urge that we solve the problems facing this Nation and stop the political pandering for this fall's elections. Let's get on and do something real. Let each of us be a person who is not going to try to control the lives of everyone else in this country. The distinguished chairman quoted Senator Goldwater in that respect. He was right. The Senate is wrong.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, and I don't want to, does the Senator have the name of who is going to go between Senator Johnson and Senator Dorgan?

Following that.

Mr. President, this is the way we normally have done it. I think it works best. The Senator from Colorado certainly is respecting that tradition, and I would agree with it.

Mr. President, we are concluding the debate on the controversial nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to a seat on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

I spoke last evening, and I shall not speak longer today except to again express my concern that we are putting a person with no judicial experience on the second most powerful court in the land.

This vote will go forward, unlike the votes for two far more qualified people nominated by President Clinton who were pocket- filibustered by the Republican leadership of the Senate, along with 59 other judges nominated by President Clinton who were pocket- filibustered by the Republican leadership.

What I worry about with this nomination of Mr. Kavanaugh, whose ABA rating has been downgraded--it is almost unprecedented to see that happen--is that he is a man who in all his statements spoke of making rulings that would make President Bush proud. This is an independent branch of Government. He is not supposed to make any President-- Republican or Democratic--proud. He is not supposed to be a rubberstamp for anybody.

I think when you have a Republican-controlled Congress which has refused to be a check on the Bush-Cheney administration, whether it is the war in Iraq, the lack of weapons of mass destruction, the failures of Homeland Security with Katrina, or this latest fiasco in the Veterans' Administration, there is no accountability. We at least should be able to speak to our courts and to expect our courts to be accountable.

This is an administration that has been secretly wiretapping Americans for years without warrants, despite the requirements of the law. This is an administration that refused to allow the Justice Department's own Office of Professional Responsibility to proceed

with an investigation into whether Justice Department lawyers violated their responsibilities or the law in establishing and justifying programs to spy on Americans. This is an internal government investigation that is being stymied by the administration.

This is an administration that has operated behind a wall of secrecy and that has issued secret legal opinions justifying the use of torture and rendition of prisoners to other countries, ignoring the dangers such tactics pose to our own soldiers and Americans around the world. This is an administration that is talking about prosecuting reporters and newspapers for trying to inform the American people about their government. This is an administration that says the law is what the President decides the law should be not what Congress passes.

What is desperately lacking throughout this administration and this Republican-controlled Congress is accountability. I will give you one example.

Yesterday, those responsible for Enron's collapse, which caused so many employees and investors to lose their savings, were held accountable in a court of law. Precious little was done by the Republican-controlled Congress to look into that. It required an independent court of law. Of course, Enron had been very generous to the President and to others and to many among the Republican leadership in the House and Senate in their contributions.

I compliment the President, who yesterday expressed some regrets over the disastrous course he charted in Iraq; he began to acknowledge the harm done to this country in Abu Ghraib--far different than during his campaign when he said he could not think of a mistake he had ever made except for some of his nominations.

Well, the President's picks for important judicial nominations continue to fare no better than his picks to head the CIA or FEMA or the VA. But bad judicial nominations will continue for lifetimes, not just the 2 years left to the Bush-Cheney administration. In just the past few months, we have learned that Judge Terrence Boyle, President Bush's pick for the Fourth Circuit and a sitting U.S. district judge, has ruled on multiple cases involving corporations in which he held an interest. The President's nominee to the Tenth Circuit, Judge James Payne, was withdrawn after it was revealed that he, too, sat on many cases where he held stock in one of the parties. Another of President Bush's nominees to the Fourth Circuit, Claude Allen, who would be a sitting Circuit Judge now if Democrats had not opposed his nomination, is now the subject of a criminal prosecution for charges akin to stealing from retail stores. And Michael Wallace, President Bush's pick for the Fifth Circuit, recently received the first unanimous not qualified rating from the ABA for a Circuit Court nominee in nearly 25 years.

Now we are considering a nominee today, Brett Kavanaugh, who is a young and relatively inexperienced, but ambitious member of the White House's inner circle. He is the President's pick to put another ally and trusted vote on the DC Circuit. He has spent most of his legal career in partisan political positions. As Staff Secretary to the President, Mr. Kavanaugh has been involved in President Bush's use of 750 Presidential signing statements designed to reserve for the President alone the power to choose whether to enforce laws passed by Congress. As an Associate White House Counsel, Mr. Kavanaugh worked with Karl Rove on the President's plan to pack the Federal bench with ideologues such as William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown and others. He helped justify the wall of secrecy that has shrouded so many of the White House's activities.

At his hearing Mr. Kavanaugh emphasized, as if a qualification, that he had ``earned the trust of the President'' and his ``senior staff.'' All that may be useful for advancement within this President's administration or Republican circles, but those are hardly qualities or qualifications for an independent judge of this President and this administration's actions. Indeed, when pressed at his confirmation hearing to provide answers about his qualifications for this lifetime appointment and how he would fulfill his responsibilities as a judge, Mr. Kavanaugh sounded like a spokesman and representative for the administration. Over and over he answered our questions by alluding to what the President would want and what the President would want him to do. We heard from a nominee who parroted the administration's talking points on subject after subject. Rather than answer our questions, he referred us to the bland explanation offered by a former Presidential spokesman. I do not think the Senate should confirm a Presidential spokesman to be a judge on the second highest court in the land. I do not believe that Mr. Kavanaugh demonstrated that he has left his role as a member of the President's administration or that he will.

The reasons for the downgrading of Mr. Kavanaugh's ABA rating also raise concerns about his independence. Not only did those who have seen Mr. Kavanaugh in his limited legal practice describe him as ``less than adequate,'' but those who were interviewed recently raised concerns about Mr. Kavanaugh's ability to be balanced given his many years in partisan positions working to advance a political agenda. They described him as ``insulated,'' ``sanctimonious,'' and ``immovable and very stubborn and frustrating to deal with on some issues.'' These may be good qualities for a partisan political operative, but they are not qualities that make for a good judge.

My concerns about Mr. Kavanaugh's judicial independence are heightened by the fact that he has been nominated to the DC Circuit, a court which the Republicans have spent more than a decade trying to pack. They spent President Clinton's second term blocking his highly- qualified nominees, Elena Kagan, now Dean of Harvard Law School, and Allen Snyder, a former clerk to Chief Justice Rehnquist and highly respected litigator. Nonetheless, I voted to confirm Judge John Roberts to be a member of the DC Circuit and later supported his nomination to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

After the Senate last year confirmed two of President Bush's nominees that I strongly opposed--Janice Rogers Brown and Thomas Griffith-- Republican appointees now comprise a two-to-one majority on this important court. This is not a court that needs another rubberstamp for the President's political ally.

The Senate Republican leadership is catering to the extreme rightwing and special interest groups agitating for a fight over judicial nominations. With a number of judicial nominees ready for bipartisan confirmation, the Senate Republican leadership would rather concentrate on this controversial and divisive nominee. That this nomination has not moved forward for 3 years is indicative of the fact that even Republican Senators know what a poor nomination this is. They have made no secret of the reason for rushing this nomination through the Senate now, after it has languished for 3 years under Republican control, and after the nominee admitted to slow-walking his responses to this committee. They want to stir up a fight. They want to score cheap political points at the expense of another lifetime appointment to the courts.

The Senate Republican leadership is apparently heeding the advice of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which wrote, ``[a] filibuster fight would be exactly the sort of political battle Republicans need to energize conservative voters after their recent months of despond.'' Rich Lowery, editor of the conservative National Review, listed a fight over judges as one of the ways President Bush could revive his political fortunes, writing that he should, ``[p]ush for the confirmation of his circuit judges that are pending. Talk about them by name. The G.O.P. wins judiciary fights.'' Republican Senators are relishing this chance for a political fight. Senator Thune has said, ``A good fight on judges does nothing but energize our base. . . . Right now our folks are feeling a little flat.'' Senator Cornyn has said, ``I think this is excellent timing. From a political standpoint, when we talk about judges, we win.'' On May 8, 2006, the New York Times reported: ``Republicans are itching for a good election-year fight. Now they are about to get one: a reprise of last year's Senate showdown

over judges.'' The Washington Post reported on May 10: ``Republicans had revived debate on Kavanaugh and another Bush appellate nominee, Terrence Boyle, in hopes of changing the pre-election subject from Iraq, high gasoline prices and bribery scandals.''

We should not stand idly by as Republicans choose to use lifetime Federal judgeships for partisan political advantage. In a May 11, 2006, editorial The Tennessean wrote:

[T]he nation should look with complete dismay at the

blatantly political angle on nominations being advocated by

Senate Republicans now. . . . Republicans are girding for a

fight on judicial nominees for no reason other than to be

girding for a fight. They have admitted as much in public

comments. . . . In other words, picking a public fight over

judicial nominees is, in their minds, the right thing to do

because it's the politically right thing to do. . . . Now,

Republicans are advocating a brawl for openly political

purposes. The appointment of judges deserves far more respect

than to be an admitted election-year ploy. . . . It should be

beneath the Senate to have such a serious matter subjected to

nothing but a tool for political gain.

On May 3, 2006, the New York Times wrote in an editorial:

The Republicans have long used judicial nominations as a

way of placating the far right of their party, and it appears

that with President Bush sinking in the polls, they now want

to offer up some new appeals court judges to their

conservative base. But a lifetime appointment to the DC

Circuit is too important to be treated as a political reward.

Our job in the Senate should not be to score political points or advance partisan agendas. Our job is to fulfill our duty under the Constitution for the American people. We must be able to assure the American people that the judges confirmed to lifetime appointments to the highest courts in this country are fair to those who enter their courtrooms and to the law.

We have heard from many who are concerned about the nomination of Mr. Kavanaugh: The AFL-CIO, United Auto Workers, and Service Employees International Union have all written to us opposing this nomination. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, NARAL PRO-Choice American, and the National Council of Jewish Women have all written to us opposing this nomination. The Society of American Law Teachers, National Employment Lawyers Association, and the Alliance for Justice have all written to us opposing this nomination. Earthjustice and Community Rights Counsel have written to us concerned about this nomination.

The Senate's job is to fulfill our duty under the Constitution, rather than act as a rubberstamp for the President's attempt to pack the courts with political allies. We must be able to assure the American people that the judges confirmed to lifetime appointments to the highest courts in this country are being appointed to be fair and protect their interests, rather than those of a Presidential patron. Mr. Kavanaugh has given the Senate no reason to believe he has the capacity for independence.

I am prepared to vote on Mr. Kavanaugh right now unless others on the other side would wish to talk, which, of course, would lead others to talk. As I said to the two leaders last night, I would be willing to go to a vote soon.

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

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

Mr. President, in several crucial respects, the CIA today is in disarray, and fixing our premier intelligence agency must be a top priority. The CIA must become as effective as we need it to be in combating terrorism and in serving all of our national security interests. The keys to a strong and competent CIA are the independence and proficiency of its leadership.

I had a lengthy private discussion with General Hayden in deciding how I would vote on his confirmation. Our discussion confirmed the confidence that I have long had in General Hayden's professionalism and competence. I remain outraged about the controversial domestic surveillance initiatives that the NSA has overseen at the White House's direction, but the fact remains that President Bush and Vice President Cheney--not General Hayden--were the ``deciders'' in ordering this surveillance of Americans, with then-White House Counsel Gonzales acting in his capacity to validate a program that was structured and operated outside the checks and balances of existing law.

The CIA right now is in desperate need of professionalism after the debacle of the Agency's outgoing leadership, and my discussions with General Hayden have led me to conclude that he has the competence, the experience, and the independence to serve capably in helping to repair the damage that has been done to the Agency. I will vote for his confirmation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to remember my friend Rev. William Sloane Coffin who passed away in Vermont on April 12, 2006, at his home in Strafford.

Bill Coffin was an extraordinary man who leaves behind a legacy of inspired service for social justice that few Americans have matched. He dedicated his life to speaking out on behalf of those who would otherwise be forgotten, to improving the lives of the underprivileged, and to calling for justice for victims of discrimination in our society.

As chaplain of Yale University, Bill used that pulpit like none before him, to serve not only the Yale community but to inspire the entire Nation. While many Senators may remember him best for his moral leadership and courageous activism during the Vietnam War, Bill also established himself as a dedicated leader for racial and social justice. He was a member of the Freedom Riders who rode interstate buses in the South to challenge segregation laws. He was a visionary and powerful leader in pointing out the hypocrisy of religious and sexual discrimination

Mr. Gary Trudeau, creator of the cartoon ``Doonesbury'' and fellow Yale graduate, may have immortalized Bill Coffin in his Reverend Sloan character. But that was only one chapter of a lifetime of using his ministry to fight injustice. After his long service at Yale, Bill became pastor of Riverside Church in New York City where he continued to advocate for the downtrodden all over the world. Bill continued to be a forceful presence for good long after he left Riverside.

Mr. President, Vermonters were fortunate to have Bill Coffin as a resident of our unique State. Vermonters have a long history of independent thought, of standing up for what is right, and Bill Coffin set a standard for all of us. I was privileged to know him personally and to be able to call him a friend. I know his other friends and neighbors felt the same way. We were all made better, and felt better about ourselves, when we were in the company of Bill Coffin.

I ask unanimous consent that a column by William F. Buckley and an editorial in the Valley News be printed in the Congressional Record so that other Senators may have a further appreciation of this great and good man.

Mr. President, today, I join the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, in introducing an amended version of S. 852, the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2006, the FAIR Act. This legislation enhances our previous trust fund bill by adopting many of the amendments filed in February by Senators on both sides of the aisle. We have incorporated amendments that further protect against fraud and make sure the sickest victims are paid as soon as possible. We added crucial provisions that make the trust fund accessible to victims who were exposed to asbestos during the attacks on the World Trade Center and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We clarified the bill language to ensure that inactive dormant claims cannot be revived to overwhelm the trust fund.

This legislation also contains a few additional changes that we believe respond directly to concerns raised by our colleagues during floor debate. The floor amendments incorporated in this bill include, among others, the Kyl funding amendment that will protect small and medium sized businesses. We also addressed the concerns of businesses that currently pay nothing or very little because they are well- insured. None of these changes undermine the existing guarantee on overall private funding at $140 billion.

Also importantly, we preserved the ability of the existing bankruptcy trusts to continue paying impaired victims while the trust fund becomes operational. This will smooth the transition for victims who were exposed by companies that are currently protected from suit by bankruptcy. And finally, we clarified the statute of limitations for our Nation's war veterans so they will have better access to the trust fund.

None of the additional provisions contained in this substitute diminish the bill's key principle: That the asbestos trust fund will be comprised solely of private money. Nothing in this bill will reduce the protection of victims against insurance subrogation. I am proud to report that we have also maintained our core medical criteria so that those who have been impaired by asbestos exposure will receive compensation appropriate to their injuries.

Earlier this week, we were all saddened to learn of the passing of Judge Edward R. Becker. As many of my colleagues are keenly aware, Judge Becker worked patiently with Senators and all of the stakeholders on this legislation for almost 3 years. We engaged in an exhaustive process of committee hearings, deliberations and negotiations. Judge Becker was crucial to each step in the process. We would not have made the bipartisan progress that this legislation reflects without his tireless efforts.

Unfortunately, time is running out for this session of Congress. I know that some partisans will claim that we should refrain from reaching across the aisle during an election year but this persistent problem compels us to move forward to try and help the thousands of victims of asbestos exposure. I urge the Senate majority leader to give us sufficient floor time to debate and vote on this important legislation on its merits.

Mr. President, today, I join the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, in introducing an amended version of S. 852, the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2006, the FAIR Act. This legislation enhances our previous trust fund bill by adopting many of the amendments filed in February by Senators on both sides of the aisle. We have incorporated amendments that further protect against fraud and make sure the sickest victims are paid as soon as possible. We added crucial provisions that make the trust fund accessible to victims who were exposed to asbestos during the attacks on the World Trade Center and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We clarified the bill language to ensure that inactive dormant claims cannot be revived to overwhelm the trust fund.

This legislation also contains a few additional changes that we believe respond directly to concerns raised by our colleagues during floor debate. The floor amendments incorporated in this bill include, among others, the Kyl funding amendment that will protect small and medium sized businesses. We also addressed the concerns of businesses that currently pay nothing or very little because they are well- insured. None of these changes undermine the existing guarantee on overall private funding at $140 billion.

Also importantly, we preserved the ability of the existing bankruptcy trusts to continue paying impaired victims while the trust fund becomes operational. This will smooth the transition for victims who were exposed by companies that are currently protected from suit by bankruptcy. And finally, we clarified the statute of limitations for our Nation's war veterans so they will have better access to the trust fund.

None of the additional provisions contained in this substitute diminish the bill's key principle: That the asbestos trust fund will be comprised solely of private money. Nothing in this bill will reduce the protection of victims against insurance subrogation. I am proud to report that we have also maintained our core medical criteria so that those who have been impaired by asbestos exposure will receive compensation appropriate to their injuries.

Earlier this week, we were all saddened to learn of the passing of Judge Edward R. Becker. As many of my colleagues are keenly aware, Judge Becker worked patiently with Senators and all of the stakeholders on this legislation for almost 3 years. We engaged in an exhaustive process of committee hearings, deliberations and negotiations. Judge Becker was crucial to each step in the process. We would not have made the bipartisan progress that this legislation reflects without his tireless efforts.

Unfortunately, time is running out for this session of Congress. I know that some partisans will claim that we should refrain from reaching across the aisle during an election year but this persistent problem compels us to move forward to try and help the thousands of victims of asbestos exposure. I urge the Senate majority leader to give us sufficient floor time to debate and vote on this important legislation on its merits.

Mr. President, I applaud Senators Feingold and Brownback for proposing an amendment to correct a seriously flawed provision that remains in the immigration bill that we are likely to pass. Under section 227(c) of the bill, Federal courts of appeals would be prohibited from granting an asylum seeker a temporary stay of deportation unless the alien could prove by clear and convincing evidence that the order of deportation is unlawful. In many cases, this is the same or an even a higher standard than an alien would be required to meet in order to win his or her case on the merits. This result has been described by one Federal court as ``Kafkaesque.'' It is also fundamentally unfair.

Judicial review is the failsafe that guarantees the rights of men and women when the law is interpreted incorrectly or when human emotion or bias overcomes impartiality. Judicial review helps define our constitutional democracy and is a value that is deeply embedded in our system of government. It would be a grave mistake for us to accept the provision in section 227(c) and to ignore the wisdom of the distinguished Federal judges who oppose this curtailment of their authority to decide these difficult cases with care and consistent with the traditional practices of the Federal judiciary.

A number of Federal courts of appeal are in agreement that the standard contained in section 227(c) is inequitable and unworkable. The Second Circuit has said that requiring this standard ``would lead to the anomalous result that . . . an alien would have to make a more persuasive showing to obtain a stay than is required to prevail on the merits, thereby permitting the removal of some aliens with meritorious claims against removal.'' The Seventh Circuit has said that ``[t]he ability to come back to the United States would not be worth much if the alien has been maimed or murdered in the interim. Yet under the [clear and convincing evidence standard] an alien who is likely to prevail in this court, and likely to face serious injury or death if removed, is not entitled to remain in this nation while the court resolves the dispute.''

Some will argue that this provision will prevent aliens from abusing the system by filing frivolous appeals simply to gain the stay of deportation. But it is unwise for us to sweep aside decent and humanitarian treatment for many meritorious petitioners to prevent a few from abusing the system. I think we need to consider very carefully whether we want to mandate that our Federal courts get into the business of remanding even one potentially meritorious petitioner back to certain torture or death before his or her appeal is finally decided. I hope others share my faith in the integrity with which our Federal judges carry out their duties and that these men and women are eminently capable of identifying and rejecting fraudulent or abusive cases without the need for the restrictive provision contained in the bill.

We cannot live up to our American values, which abhor torture and human rights abuses, and at the same time allow this provision to remain in this bill. I urge my fellow Senators to join me in supporting the amendment Senators Feingold and Brownback propose.

Mr. President, when the Senate resumed its consideration of comprehensive immigration reform last week, I began by expressing my hope that we would finish the job the Judiciary Committee started in March and the Senate began in April. We need to fix the broken immigration system with tough reforms that secure our borders and with reforms that will bring millions of undocumented immigrants out of the shadows. I have said all along that Democratic Senators cannot pass a fair and comprehensive bill alone. Over the last 2 weeks we finally got some help. I would like to especially thank Senators Kennedy and McCain, as well as Chairman Specter and the Democratic leader, for their tireless work on this bill.

We got some words of encouragement from President Bush last week when he began speaking out more forcefully and in more specific terms about all of the components needed for comprehensive legislation. For the first time, he expressly endorsed a pathway to earned citizenship for the millions of undocumented workers now here. I thank him for joining in this effort. But his work is far from done. We will need his influence with the recalcitrant members of his party here in the House if we are ultimately to be successful in our legislative effort. Without effective intervention of the President, this effort is unlikely to be successful and the prospects for securing our borders and dealing with the hopes of millions who now live in the shadows of our society will be destroyed. Those who have peacefully demonstrated their dedication to justice and comprehensive immigration reform should not be relegated back into the shadows.

Yesterday we were able to begin to draw to a close the Republican filibuster against comprehensive immigration reform. When Republicans filibustered two cloture votes last month, including one on a motion by the Republican leader, I was disappointed. I had hoped we would recognize the lawful, heartfelt protests of millions against the harsh House-passed criminalization measures. While they waved American flags, some of those fueling anti-immigrant feelings burned flags of other countries. I am encouraged that through the course of this debate we have been able to convince enough Senate Republicans to join us in our efforts and to appreciate the contributions of immigrants to our economy and our Nation.

This bill is not all that it should be in my view. By incorporating the Hagel-Martinez formulation, we have compromised from the initial compromise. I have made no secret that I

preferred the better outline of the Judiciary Committee bill. The bill the Senate is now considering is a further compromise. Debate and amendments have added some improvements as well as some significant steps in the wrong direction. I thank Senators Bingaman, Kerry, Obama, Salazar, and others for their important and constructive amendments. I was delighted that after some initial opposition, working with Senator Stevens and others, we were able to add flexibility to the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative by extending its deadline another year and one-half through our amendment.

The Senate unwisely rejected efforts by some of us to make it more flexible for those persecuted around the world. This country has had a history of being welcoming to refugees and those seeking asylum from persecution. The Senate turned its back on that history by refusing to allow the Secretary of State the flexibility needed after restrictive language was added to our laws by the REAL ID Act. I remain hopeful that Senators will reconsider these issues with more open minds and hearts and a fully understanding of the lives being affected. Sadly, too many were spooked by false arguments.

Besides the Senate's failure to readjust asylum provisions to take into account the realities of oppressive forces in many parts of the world, I was most disappointed that the Senate appeared to be so anti- Hispanic in its adoption of the Inhofe English language amendment.

Senator Salazar and I wrote to the President following up on this provision and the comments of the Attorney General last week and weekend. We asked whether the President will continue to implement the language outreach policies of President Clinton's Executive Order 13166. A prompt and straightforward affirmative answer can go a long way toward rendering the Inhofe English amendment a symbolic stain rather than a serious impediment to immigrants and Americans for whom English at this moment in their lives is a second language.

I deeply regret that the Senate took such a divisive act. Over my strong objection and that of the Democratic leader, Senator Salazar, and others, a modified version of the Inhofe amendment was adopted. I understand why this amendment provoked a reaction from the Latino community as exemplified by the May 19 letter from the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the National Association of Latino Elected Officials Educational Fund, the National Council of La Raza, the National Puerto Rican Coalition, and from a larger coalition of interested parties from 96 national and local organizations.

Until this week, in our previous 230 years we have not found it necessary or wise to adopt English as our official or national language. I believe it was in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that the State legislature shortly after the Revolutionary War authorized official publication of Pennsylvania's laws in German as well as English to serve the German-speaking population of that State. We have been a confident Nation unafraid to hear expressions in a variety of languages and willing to reach out to all within our borders. That tradition is reflected in President Clinton's Executive Order 13166.

We demean our history and our welcoming tradition when we disparage Spanish and those who come to us speaking Spanish. I have spoken about our including Latin phrases on our official seal and the many States that include mottos and phrases in Latin, French, and Spanish on their State flags. We need not fear other languages. We would do better to do more to encourage and assist those who wish to be citizens to learn English, but we should recognize English, as Senator Salazar's amendment suggested, as our common and unifying language.

Yesterday, once we had overcome the previous Republican filibuster, we were faced with a budget point of order supported by some Senators who oppose the bill and who added significantly to the costs of the bill through their amendments. Rather than continue their efforts to delay or derail Senate action on comprehensive immigration reform, I had hoped that they would join with us in a constructive way to enact comprehensive immigration reform. We do not need more divisiveness, derision, and obstruction.

This bill is not the bill I would have designed. It includes many features I do not support and fails to include many that I do. The bill that won the bipartisan support of a majority of the Judiciary Committee was a compromise that contained the essential components that are required for comprehensive immigration reform. Before the last recess I was willing to support a further compromise that incorporated the principles of the Hagel-Martinez bill because it was proposed by the majority leader as a ``breakthrough'' that would allow us to pass immigration reform.

I want to express my appreciation to the Democratic leader, Senator Reid. He was right to insist that the original version of the Kyl- Cornyn amendment and the Isakson amendment not be rushed through the Senate to score political points. As the significantly revised version of the Kyl-Cornyn amendment attests, the Democratic leader was right. With a little time, and thanks to a lot of hard work, the amendment has been significantly changed, narrowed, and accepted. With a little time and bipartisan commitment the Isakson amendment was defeated.

We have proceeded to consider dozens of amendments. Most have been offered by Republican Senators. Some have been approved; some have been tabled or rejected. The Senate has worked its will.

Immigration reform must be comprehensive if it is to lead to real security and real reform. Enforcement-only measures may sound tough, but they are insufficient. The Senate has a responsibility to pass a bill that addresses our broken system with comprehensive reform and puts the pieces in place to secure the Nation.

Just a few weeks ago, I went to the White House with a bipartisan delegation of Senators to speak with the President. The need for a fair and comprehensive immigration bill was the consensus at that meeting, and I believe the President was sincere when he told us that we had his support. I trust that he will urge comprehensive immigration reform on the Republican House leadership who has yet to endorse our bipartisan comprehensive approach. Without the President following through on his words with actions, the effort for comprehensive immigration reform is unlikely to be successful.

Last week the Senate made progress. We made progress because Democratic and Republican Senators working together rejected the most strident attacks on the comprehensive bill. We joined together in a bipartisan coalition in the Judiciary Committee when we reported the Judiciary Committee bill. Democratic Senators were ready to join together in April and supported the Republican leader's motion that would have resulted in incorporating features from the Hagel-Martinez bill, but Republicans balked at that time and continued to filibuster action. Last week, Republicans joined with us to defend the core provisions of that bill, and we defeated efforts by Senators Kyl and Cornyn to gut the guest worker provisions and to undermine the pathway to earned citizenship. Instead, we adopted the Bingaman amendment to cap the annual guest worker program at 200,000 and the Obama amendment regarding prevailing wages in order to better protect the opportunities and wages of American workers.

I spoke last week about the need to strengthen our border security after more than 5 years of neglect and failure by the Bush-Cheney administration. A recent report concluded that the number of people apprehended at our borders for illegal entry fell 31 percent on President Bush's watch, from a yearly average of 1.52 million between 1996 and 2000, to 1.05 million between 2001 and 2004. The number of illegal immigrants apprehended while in the interior of the country declined 36 percent, from a yearly average of roughly 40,000 between 1996 and 2000, to 25,901 between 2001 and 2004. Audits and fines against employers of illegal immigrants have also fallen significantly since President Bush took office. Given the vast increases in the number of Border Patrol agents, the decline in enforcement can only be explained by a failure of leadership.

Meanwhile, once again the administration is turning to the fine men and

women of National Guard. After our intervention turned sour in Iraq, the Pentagon turned to the Guard. After the Government-wide failure in responding to Hurricane Katrina, we turned to the Guard. Now, the administration's longstanding lack of focus on our porous southern border and failure to develop a comprehensive immigration policy has prompted the administration to turn once again to the Guard. I remain puzzled that this administration, which seems so ready to take advantage of the Guard, fights so vigorously against providing this essential force with adequate equipment, a seat at the table in policy debates, or even adequate health insurance for the men and women of the Guard.

I have cautioned that any Guard units should operate under the authority of State Governors. In addition, the Federal Government should pick up the full costs of such a deployment. Those costs should not be foisted onto the States and their already overtaxed Guard units.

Controlling our borders is a national responsibility, and it is regrettable that so much of this duty has been punted to the States and now to the Guard. The Guard is pitching in above and beyond, balancing its already demanding responsibilities to the States, while sending troops who have been deployed to Iraq. The Guard served admirably in response to Hurricane Katrina when the Federal Government failed to prepare or respond in a timely or sufficient manner. The Vermont Guard and others have been contributing to our national security since the immediate aftermath of 9/11. After 5 years of failing to utilize the authority and funding Congress has provided to strengthen the Border Patrol and our border security, the administration is, once again, turning to the National Guard.

It was instructive that last week President Bush and congressional Republicans staged a bill-signing for legislation that continues billions of dollars of tax cuts for the wealthy. Instead of a budget with robust and complete funding for our Border Patrol and border security, the President has focused on providing tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. Congress has had to step in time and again to create new border agent positions and direct that they be filled. Instead of urging his party to take early and decisive action to pass comprehensive immigration reform, as he signaled he would in February 2001, the President began his second term campaigning to undercut the protections of our Social Security system, and the American people signaled their opposition to those undermining steps. While the President talks about the importance of our first responders, he has proposed 67 percent cuts in the grant program that supplies bulletproof vests to police officers.

Five years of the Bush-Cheney administration's inaction and misplaced priorities have done nothing to improve our immigration situation. The Senate just passed an emergency supplemental appropriations bill that allocated nearly $2 billion from military accounts to border security. The Democratic leader had proposed that the funds not be taken from the troops. But last week the President sent a request for diverting a like amount of funding, intended for capital improvements for border security, into operations and deployment of the National Guard. The Republican chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security came to the Senate Floor last week to give an extraordinary speech in this regard.

Border security alone is not enough to solve our immigration problems. We must pass a bill--and enact a law--that will not only strengthen the security along our borders, but that will also encourage millions of people to come out of the shadows. When this is accomplished we will be more secure because we will know who is living and working in the United States. We must encourage the undocumented to come forward, undergo background checks, and pay taxes to earn a place on the path to citizenship.

In addition, last week the Senate adopted a billion-dollar amendment to build fencing along the southern border without saying how it would be funded. We also adopted amendments by Senators Bingaman, Kerry, and Nelson of Florida to strengthen our enforcement efforts.

Last week we defeated an Ensign amendment to deny persons in legal status the Social Security benefits to which they are fairly entitled. I believe that most Americans will agree with that decision as fair and just. It maintains the trust of the Social Security trust fund for those workers who contribute to the fund. This week we defeated a Sessions amendment that would have unfairly stripped immigrants of earned-income tax credits. I am pleased that in both cases the Senate agreed not to unfairly withhold these benefits from hard-working immigrants who will benefit immensely from them.

The opponents of our bipartisan bill have made a number of assaults on our comprehensive approach. Senators Kyl, Sessions, and Cornyn opposed the Judiciary Committee bill. Senators Vitter, Ensign, Chambliss, and Inhofe have been very active in the amendment process, as well. I hope that they recognize how fairly they have been treated and the time they have been given to argue their case against the bill and offer amendments. We have adopted their amendments where possible. A narrowed version of the Kyl-Cornyn amendment disqualifying some from seeking legalization was adopted. The Sessions amendment on fencing was adopted. The Vitter amendment on documents was adopted. The Ensign amendment on the National Guard was adopted. The Cornyn amendment imposing additional costs on immigrants was adopted.

I trust that with so many of their amendments having been fairly considered and some having been adopted, those in the opposition to this measure will reevaluate their previous filibuster. It may be too much to think that they will support the bill as amended.

Mr. President, today for the second week in a row the Senate Judiciary Committee's agenda included a proposed amendment to the Constitution, to its fundamental purpose and to our rights as Americans. I understand that Republicans are trying to keep to a political timetable for raising divisive matters in the runup to the November elections.

I know that in election years they love to wave the flag amendment, rather than work on veterans health care or protecting veterans' privacy. We have just witnessed the largest theft of private information from the Government ever, the loss of information on more than 26 million American veterans. Compounding the incompetence was the misguided decision by the Veterans' Administration for secrecy in trying to cover this up for the last 3 weeks. This follows on the heels of last year's debacle of a billion-dollar shortfall in VA's budget for veterans health care, after repeated denials. It all adds up to a ``heckuva bad job'' for America's veterans.

The President should call Secretary Nicholson into the woodshed for a serious shakeup in how the VA is run. In the meantime, Secretary Nicholson needs to answer why this information was left vulnerable to such a breach, why such a delay in notification was allowed to occur, and what specific steps he is taking to ensure such a breach does not happen again. The Nation's veterans--who have been willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country--deserve to have the best tools available to protect themselves and their families from identity theft.

Rather than work on our privacy and identity theft legislation, including the Specter-Leahy Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005, or the Kerry-Salazar legislation to provide credit checks and monitoring to those veterans whose private information was compromised, we are being directed to another divisive debate on a proposed constitutional amendment.

In that regard, I noticed that earlier this week, the White House Press Secretary was asked about this constitutional amendment and had no knowledge of it existing. I would like to include that exchange in the Record:

Question. [C]ould you tell us if the President also

supports the proposed amendment to protect the United States

flag from public desecration?

Mr. Snow. Do we have a flag desecration--I apologize; this

is something that, believe it or not, in the last two weeks

has not come up. So I'm afraid----

Question. Flag burning.

Mr. Snow [continuing]. Flag burning. I'll just have to get

back [to you].

The White House Press Secretary has yet to become familiar with the talking points on how much more important this is than national security, the war in Iraq, unprecedented gas prices, the lack of a Federal budget, the penalties on seniors who may now wish to sign up for Medicare drug prescription, comprehensive immigration reform, emergency supplemental appropriations, preparations for the hurricane season, preparations for a possible avian flu pandemic, privacy legislation, and completing our work on reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the five bills on suspending duties be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am today introducing a bill which can be the catalyst for saving the lives or improving the health of millions of families in impoverished nations.

In far too many nations, thousands of children die needlessly each month.

The concept of my bill--called the Life-Saving Medicines Export Act of 2006--is easy to summarize.

It allows U.S. companies to make low-cost generic versions of patented medicines for export to impoverished nations that face public health crises but cannot produce those life-saving medicines for themselves.

This bill is based on World Trade Organization agreements permitting nations with pharmaceutical industries to help nations in need.

That WTO agreement was labeled by U.S. Ambassador Portman as ``a landmark achievement that we hope will help developing countries devastated by HIV and AIDS and other public health crises.''

Apart from the pressing need for this step in humanitarian terms, passage of this bill could go a long way in improving U.S. relations with large segments of the world's population.

On December 6, 2005, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative announced that it ``welcomes'' efforts to ``allow countries to override patent rights when necessary to export life-saving drugs to developing countries that face public health crises but cannot produce drugs for themselves.''

I am concerned, however, that the administration has taken no steps whatsoever to begin to implement that agreement. No implementing legislation has been provided to the Hill. I was informed just today that the administration has ``no present plans'' to propose legislation to implement that international agreement. I am disappointed with that answer but am pleased that the administration expressed a willingness to work with me on this important effort. I will forward my bill to them later today.

Indeed, the World Health Assembly and the World Health Organization have adopted resolutions urging all WTO member nations with a generic capability to adopt laws that implement that agreement.

The World Bank recently issued a guide and model documents on how

best to implement that international agreement. My bill follows their model.

Like a generation ago, infectious and parasitic diseases remain the major killers of children in the developing world. Many of these diseases--measles, malaria, river blindness--we can prevent or cure. But those countries still lack the public health systems and the vital medicines.

Every hour, more than 500 African mothers lose a child, mostly from diseases caused by contaminated water.

In some sub-Saharan countries, HIV infection rates range as high as a third of the adult population, and for this reason 35 percent of African children are at higher risk of death than they were a decade ago.

Despite these grim statistics, there is a brighter side.

We are far more aware today of how much our own health depends on what takes place half a world away. Whether it is AIDS, SARS, West Nile Virus, the Avian Flu, or some as yet unknown infectious disease, we are all at risk, and only an airplane flight away, from wherever the outbreak may occur.

Because of this new awareness, global health is finally recognized as an issue of national security. It may seem obvious today, but even ten years ago it was not.

Health threats that once concerned only medical personnel, now receive the attention of the highest levels of governments. We are supporting policies and programs to help the poorest countries conduct better surveillance and respond more quickly to protect their own people, and to prevent the spread of disease.

There is a great deal more we need to do. Today, 15 percent of the world's people consume 91 percent of the world's pharmaceuticals. The high price of many life-saving medicines--medicines that we take for granted in this country--is beyond reach for billions of the world's most vulnerable populations.

President Franklin Roosevelt said: ``The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.''

Imagine if you, or a loved one, were dying and you knew the medicine to cure the disease exists and costs only a few dollars, but you have no way to get it or to pay for it. That is a reality for millions of people today.

Reports by UNICEF, UNAIDS, and Doctors without Borders clearly show that the high price of many life-saving medicines is a significant barrier to their availability in many very low income areas of the world. Indeed, the 4th Global Report of UNAIDS notes the extremely low rate of treatment for HIV/AIDS in those areas by pointing out that of the 5 to 6 million urgently in need of antiretroviral medicines, only some 400,000 were receiving them.

With respect to AIDS, a recent book by Philip Hilts called ``Prescription for Survival'' notes the importance of offering affordable medicines to populations of impoverished nations:

``It was said that the price of the drugs was killing tens of thousands . . .''

Under my bill, U.S. generic manufacturers would be allowed to make generic versions of patented drugs without the consent of the patent holders.

Those patent holders would receive compensation in the form of a royalty payment under a so-called ``compulsory license'' and the generic companies would then be required to sell those less-expensive generic drugs only to least-developed or developing nations.

Use of a compulsory license occurs when Congress determines that there is an important need which should be addressed.

For example, most Americans do not realize that their network television programs received by satellite or by cable are provided under a compulsory license. The program owners receive a royalty for their programs under a formula.

This way American families can watch network TV programming over satellite or cable just like it is made available over-the-air. This same compulsory license approach, except with respect to patented medicines, is employed in this bill.

The WTO agreement contains language designed to protect the interests of the patent holders by focusing its benefits on areas of the world where these important medicines would not otherwise be available except for some of the wealthiest residents.

Thus, implementation of the agreement would not take business away from the companies owning the patents, sometimes referred to as the ``brand-name'' companies, since their medicines are not purchased by low-income families in those impoverished nations.

In addition, the patent holders will receive royalties from the generic companies under the bill. Third, generic versions of products sold under the agreement have to be clearly marked as not for resale to developed nations. This will mean that the bill should not result in undercutting the high-priced sales of those medicines by the brand-name companies in developed nations.

Thus, the bill addresses both the urgent needs of millions of low- income families in impoverished nations while protecting the interests of the patent owners of these life-saving medicines.

There have been significant voluntary efforts made by brand-name pharmaceutical companies, foundations, and non-profits who have donated life-saving medicines and have donated time, personnel and money to help in the fight against deadly diseases in other nations. I commend and greatly appreciate those efforts.

Some funding mechanisms have been started including the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and President Bush's Millennium Challenge Account. Nonetheless, much remains to be done.

If this bill is enacted it would complement the above efforts and implement the WTO agreements and make low-cost life-saving pharmaceutical products, and other medicines, available to hundreds of thousands of persons without other access to those products.

To provide a little history, I am very pleased that all the member nations of the World Trade Organization, WTO, agreed to this approach to assist people suffering from life-threatening diseases in least- developed or developing nations. Under this international agreement, nations such as the United States with pharmaceutical industries would be allowed to make and sell generic medicines to nations in need even if the patent owners of those medicines refused to authorize such manufacture and sale.

As I said earlier, on December 6, 2005, the United States announced that it ``welcomes'' the WTO amendment to ``allow countries to override patent rights when necessary to export life-saving drugs to developing countries that face public health crises but cannot produce drugs for themselves.'' The amendment will go in effect, for those nations which adopt it, once \2/3\ of the member nations adopt it. The current waiver approach, allowing nations to implement it now, will remain in place until the permanent amendment is adopted. This permits the U.S. to move forward with this effort this year. Indeed, Canada has already passed implementing legislation.

Participation by any nation which wants to export such generic products is voluntary. In order to participate, each country must pass legislation to implement the WTO agreement. The United States needs to act as soon as possible.

This is a moral issue. I am working with a number of religious groups, humanitarian organizations, international assistance groups, and generic drug companies on this effort. I have also received input from some pharmaceutical brand-name companies and hope a few will step forward and be leaders in this effort. I will also reach out across the aisle to try to form a bipartisan coalition.

Two recent World Health Organization annual reports, the World Health Reports for 2003 and 2004, demonstrate the enormous scope of the need for supplying these medicines to needy countries. The ``Life-Saving Medicines Export Act of 2006'' that I am introducing today would allow the U.S. generic industry to respond to these urgent international needs and could save millions of lives in impoverished nations.

Canada, Norway and the Netherlands have already enacted such legislation or rule changes. However, aspects of the Canadian law have been an impediment to the willingness of generic companies to participate. For example,

that law allows Canadian generic companies to provide such medicines for at most only 4 years. The Canadian version permits dilatory and needless litigation, omits important medicines from a complex list of covered drugs, and creates unnecessary bureaucratic hoops.

I have received input from generic companies and my bill addresses all of those concerns. For example, it would provide that a participating generic manufacturer could provide such medicines for up to 14 years which makes it much more likely that U.S. generic companies would make the investments needed to make low-cost medicines for export to impoverished areas.

Under my bill, U.S. generic manufacturers would be allowed to make generic versions of patented drugs without the consent of the patent holders. Those patent holders would receive compensation, a royalty payment, under a so-called ``compulsory license'' and the generic companies would then be required to sell those less-expensive generic drugs only to least-developed or developing nations.

The WTO agreement contains language designed to protect the interests of the patent holders by focusing its provisions on areas of the world where these important medicines would not otherwise be available except for some of the wealthiest residents. Thus, implementation of the agreement would not take business away from the companies owning the patents, sometimes referred to as the ``brand-name patent holders since their medicines are not purchased by low-income families in those impoverished nations. There may be de minimis losses of profits for brand-name patent holders but certainly the humanitarian and self- interest benefits provided by the bill would massively outweigh those concerns.

In addition, the patent holders will receive royalties from the generic companies under the bill. Third, generic versions of products sold under the agreement have to be clearly marked as not for resale to developed nations. This should mean that the bill will not result in undercutting the high-priced sales of the patented medicines in developed nations. Re-exporting of these generic products is prohibited unless it is part of a regional trade alliance among impoverished nations as permitted under the WTO agreements.

Thus, the bill addresses both the urgent needs of millions of low- income families in impoverished nations while protecting the interests of the patent owners of these life-saving medicines and will hopefully help enhance America's image in the world.

For those only interested in self-interest rather than humanitarian aid, note that because of the globalization of travel our Nation is at risk from failure to contain diseases in other nations. America has a strong self-interest in combating diseases in foreign nations. A surprising number of new diseases have emerged in recent years. Some of these new diseases are variations of existing diseases. The volume of people and cargo going to and from distant nations is astounding. According to ``Rx for Survival'' by Philip Hilts, if you count only travel between nations with a heavy burden of disease and those with less disease, more than a million people a week are making the trip.

The more viruses and bacteria mutant inside animals and people, and the more people and goods travel throughout the world, the more residents living in the United States are at risk of being harmed by dangerous diseases.

The National Intelligence Estimate of January 2000, published by the CIA and the National Intelligence Council noted that: ``New and emerging infectious diseases will pose a rising global health threat, and will complicate U.S. and global security over the next 20 years. These diseases will endanger U.S. citizens at home and abroad, threaten United States armed forces deployed overseas and exacerbate social and political instability in key countries and regions.''

I hope all my colleagues will join me in supporting this effort. Here is my section-by-section summary of the bill.

Section 1: Sets forth the name of the Act as the ``Life-Saving Medicines Export Act of 2006.''

Section 2: States that the purpose of the Act is to promote public health under World Trade Organization agreements by permitting the export of generic versions of life-saving patented pharmaceutical products and other medicines including diagnostic tools and vaccines needed to prevent or treat potentially life threatening diseases to residents of impoverished countries with insufficient or no manufacturing capacity to make the medicines. The findings set forth determinations by the World Health Organization concerning the millions of low-income persons without regular access to medicines in lesser- developed or developing nations.

Section 3: This section requires the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to issue a compulsory license (permission to make and sell a patented product under this new Act) to permit generic companies to make and export medicines under the terms of WTO international agreements under several conditions.

The recipient country must be a least-developed nation, as defined by the United Nations, or a developing nation without the ability to manufacture the medicine in question.

The recipient country, called an ``eligible country'' in the bill, must notify the WTO of its interest in participating in this program.

Efforts must have been made by the generic company to buy the right to make and sell the medicine under normal business arrangements with the patent holders.

The medical product exported under this Act must be for life- threatening public health problems and can only be used in least- developed or developing nations, and is not for re-export except in identified circumstances relating to regional trade alliances.

Special labeling and packaging must be used to make clear that the product is sold under the authority of the WTO agreement only for use as allowed under agreement and this bill.

The permission to make and sell the product, the license, can not exceed 7 years, except that the license may be extended once.

The holder of the compulsory license shall pay a royalty to the patent holder, as determined by the Director of the PTO within a limited range of possible rates set forth in the bill, taking into account such factors as humanitarian needs, the economic value to the importing nation, and the need for low-cost pharmaceutical products by persons in the importing nation.

The maximum royalty for any shipment shall not exceed 4 percent times the commercial value of the pharmaceutical products to be exported under this Act under that supply agreement.

An alternative royalty payment approach, modeled after the approach enacted into law by Canada, would also be permitted with the same 4 percent maximum. In addition, the Director may accept combined applications from multiple eligible countries. Note that in emergency situations the Director may waive provisions of the bill in a manner consistent with the WTO agreements.

Section 4: This section makes clear that compulsory licenses issued under this Act shall not be considered an infringement of a patent.

Section 5: This section creates a diverse advisory board of academic, patent, trade, medical, international aid, and industry experts to advise the Director, and to report to the Congress, on ways to improve implementation of the bill to achieve its purposes. Mandatory funding for the board is provided out of the general fund of the U.S. at $1.5 million in fiscal years 2007 and 2008, with modestly declining amounts provided in subsequent years through 2011.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the five bills on suspending duties be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am today introducing a bill which can be the catalyst for saving the lives or improving the health of millions of families in impoverished nations.

In far too many nations, thousands of children die needlessly each month.

The concept of my bill--called the Life-Saving Medicines Export Act of 2006--is easy to summarize.

It allows U.S. companies to make low-cost generic versions of patented medicines for export to impoverished nations that face public health crises but cannot produce those life-saving medicines for themselves.

This bill is based on World Trade Organization agreements permitting nations with pharmaceutical industries to help nations in need.

That WTO agreement was labeled by U.S. Ambassador Portman as ``a landmark achievement that we hope will help developing countries devastated by HIV and AIDS and other public health crises.''

Apart from the pressing need for this step in humanitarian terms, passage of this bill could go a long way in improving U.S. relations with large segments of the world's population.

On December 6, 2005, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative announced that it ``welcomes'' efforts to ``allow countries to override patent rights when necessary to export life-saving drugs to developing countries that face public health crises but cannot produce drugs for themselves.''

I am concerned, however, that the administration has taken no steps whatsoever to begin to implement that agreement. No implementing legislation has been provided to the Hill. I was informed just today that the administration has ``no present plans'' to propose legislation to implement that international agreement. I am disappointed with that answer but am pleased that the administration expressed a willingness to work with me on this important effort. I will forward my bill to them later today.

Indeed, the World Health Assembly and the World Health Organization have adopted resolutions urging all WTO member nations with a generic capability to adopt laws that implement that agreement.

The World Bank recently issued a guide and model documents on how

best to implement that international agreement. My bill follows their model.

Like a generation ago, infectious and parasitic diseases remain the major killers of children in the developing world. Many of these diseases--measles, malaria, river blindness--we can prevent or cure. But those countries still lack the public health systems and the vital medicines.

Every hour, more than 500 African mothers lose a child, mostly from diseases caused by contaminated water.

In some sub-Saharan countries, HIV infection rates range as high as a third of the adult population, and for this reason 35 percent of African children are at higher risk of death than they were a decade ago.

Despite these grim statistics, there is a brighter side.

We are far more aware today of how much our own health depends on what takes place half a world away. Whether it is AIDS, SARS, West Nile Virus, the Avian Flu, or some as yet unknown infectious disease, we are all at risk, and only an airplane flight away, from wherever the outbreak may occur.

Because of this new awareness, global health is finally recognized as an issue of national security. It may seem obvious today, but even ten years ago it was not.

Health threats that once concerned only medical personnel, now receive the attention of the highest levels of governments. We are supporting policies and programs to help the poorest countries conduct better surveillance and respond more quickly to protect their own people, and to prevent the spread of disease.

There is a great deal more we need to do. Today, 15 percent of the world's people consume 91 percent of the world's pharmaceuticals. The high price of many life-saving medicines--medicines that we take for granted in this country--is beyond reach for billions of the world's most vulnerable populations.

President Franklin Roosevelt said: ``The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.''

Imagine if you, or a loved one, were dying and you knew the medicine to cure the disease exists and costs only a few dollars, but you have no way to get it or to pay for it. That is a reality for millions of people today.

Reports by UNICEF, UNAIDS, and Doctors without Borders clearly show that the high price of many life-saving medicines is a significant barrier to their availability in many very low income areas of the world. Indeed, the 4th Global Report of UNAIDS notes the extremely low rate of treatment for HIV/AIDS in those areas by pointing out that of the 5 to 6 million urgently in need of antiretroviral medicines, only some 400,000 were receiving them.

With respect to AIDS, a recent book by Philip Hilts called ``Prescription for Survival'' notes the importance of offering affordable medicines to populations of impoverished nations:

``It was said that the price of the drugs was killing tens of thousands . . .''

Under my bill, U.S. generic manufacturers would be allowed to make generic versions of patented drugs without the consent of the patent holders.

Those patent holders would receive compensation in the form of a royalty payment under a so-called ``compulsory license'' and the generic companies would then be required to sell those less-expensive generic drugs only to least-developed or developing nations.

Use of a compulsory license occurs when Congress determines that there is an important need which should be addressed.

For example, most Americans do not realize that their network television programs received by satellite or by cable are provided under a compulsory license. The program owners receive a royalty for their programs under a formula.

This way American families can watch network TV programming over satellite or cable just like it is made available over-the-air. This same compulsory license approach, except with respect to patented medicines, is employed in this bill.

The WTO agreement contains language designed to protect the interests of the patent holders by focusing its benefits on areas of the world where these important medicines would not otherwise be available except for some of the wealthiest residents.

Thus, implementation of the agreement would not take business away from the companies owning the patents, sometimes referred to as the ``brand-name'' companies, since their medicines are not purchased by low-income families in those impoverished nations.

In addition, the patent holders will receive royalties from the generic companies under the bill. Third, generic versions of products sold under the agreement have to be clearly marked as not for resale to developed nations. This will mean that the bill should not result in undercutting the high-priced sales of those medicines by the brand-name companies in developed nations.

Thus, the bill addresses both the urgent needs of millions of low- income families in impoverished nations while protecting the interests of the patent owners of these life-saving medicines.

There have been significant voluntary efforts made by brand-name pharmaceutical companies, foundations, and non-profits who have donated life-saving medicines and have donated time, personnel and money to help in the fight against deadly diseases in other nations. I commend and greatly appreciate those efforts.

Some funding mechanisms have been started including the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and President Bush's Millennium Challenge Account. Nonetheless, much remains to be done.

If this bill is enacted it would complement the above efforts and implement the WTO agreements and make low-cost life-saving pharmaceutical products, and other medicines, available to hundreds of thousands of persons without other access to those products.

To provide a little history, I am very pleased that all the member nations of the World Trade Organization, WTO, agreed to this approach to assist people suffering from life-threatening diseases in least- developed or developing nations. Under this international agreement, nations such as the United States with pharmaceutical industries would be allowed to make and sell generic medicines to nations in need even if the patent owners of those medicines refused to authorize such manufacture and sale.

As I said earlier, on December 6, 2005, the United States announced that it ``welcomes'' the WTO amendment to ``allow countries to override patent rights when necessary to export life-saving drugs to developing countries that face public health crises but cannot produce drugs for themselves.'' The amendment will go in effect, for those nations which adopt it, once \2/3\ of the member nations adopt it. The current waiver approach, allowing nations to implement it now, will remain in place until the permanent amendment is adopted. This permits the U.S. to move forward with this effort this year. Indeed, Canada has already passed implementing legislation.

Participation by any nation which wants to export such generic products is voluntary. In order to participate, each country must pass legislation to implement the WTO agreement. The United States needs to act as soon as possible.

This is a moral issue. I am working with a number of religious groups, humanitarian organizations, international assistance groups, and generic drug companies on this effort. I have also received input from some pharmaceutical brand-name companies and hope a few will step forward and be leaders in this effort. I will also reach out across the aisle to try to form a bipartisan coalition.

Two recent World Health Organization annual reports, the World Health Reports for 2003 and 2004, demonstrate the enormous scope of the need for supplying these medicines to needy countries. The ``Life-Saving Medicines Export Act of 2006'' that I am introducing today would allow the U.S. generic industry to respond to these urgent international needs and could save millions of lives in impoverished nations.

Canada, Norway and the Netherlands have already enacted such legislation or rule changes. However, aspects of the Canadian law have been an impediment to the willingness of generic companies to participate. For example,

that law allows Canadian generic companies to provide such medicines for at most only 4 years. The Canadian version permits dilatory and needless litigation, omits important medicines from a complex list of covered drugs, and creates unnecessary bureaucratic hoops.

I have received input from generic companies and my bill addresses all of those concerns. For example, it would provide that a participating generic manufacturer could provide such medicines for up to 14 years which makes it much more likely that U.S. generic companies would make the investments needed to make low-cost medicines for export to impoverished areas.

Under my bill, U.S. generic manufacturers would be allowed to make generic versions of patented drugs without the consent of the patent holders. Those patent holders would receive compensation, a royalty payment, under a so-called ``compulsory license'' and the generic companies would then be required to sell those less-expensive generic drugs only to least-developed or developing nations.

The WTO agreement contains language designed to protect the interests of the patent holders by focusing its provisions on areas of the world where these important medicines would not otherwise be available except for some of the wealthiest residents. Thus, implementation of the agreement would not take business away from the companies owning the patents, sometimes referred to as the ``brand-name patent holders since their medicines are not purchased by low-income families in those impoverished nations. There may be de minimis losses of profits for brand-name patent holders but certainly the humanitarian and self- interest benefits provided by the bill would massively outweigh those concerns.

In addition, the patent holders will receive royalties from the generic companies under the bill. Third, generic versions of products sold under the agreement have to be clearly marked as not for resale to developed nations. This should mean that the bill will not result in undercutting the high-priced sales of the patented medicines in developed nations. Re-exporting of these generic products is prohibited unless it is part of a regional trade alliance among impoverished nations as permitted under the WTO agreements.

Thus, the bill addresses both the urgent needs of millions of low- income families in impoverished nations while protecting the interests of the patent owners of these life-saving medicines and will hopefully help enhance America's image in the world.

For those only interested in self-interest rather than humanitarian aid, note that because of the globalization of travel our Nation is at risk from failure to contain diseases in other nations. America has a strong self-interest in combating diseases in foreign nations. A surprising number of new diseases have emerged in recent years. Some of these new diseases are variations of existing diseases. The volume of people and cargo going to and from distant nations is astounding. According to ``Rx for Survival'' by Philip Hilts, if you count only travel between nations with a heavy burden of disease and those with less disease, more than a million people a week are making the trip.

The more viruses and bacteria mutant inside animals and people, and the more people and goods travel throughout the world, the more residents living in the United States are at risk of being harmed by dangerous diseases.

The National Intelligence Estimate of January 2000, published by the CIA and the National Intelligence Council noted that: ``New and emerging infectious diseases will pose a rising global health threat, and will complicate U.S. and global security over the next 20 years. These diseases will endanger U.S. citizens at home and abroad, threaten United States armed forces deployed overseas and exacerbate social and political instability in key countries and regions.''

I hope all my colleagues will join me in supporting this effort. Here is my section-by-section summary of the bill.

Section 1: Sets forth the name of the Act as the ``Life-Saving Medicines Export Act of 2006.''

Section 2: States that the purpose of the Act is to promote public health under World Trade Organization agreements by permitting the export of generic versions of life-saving patented pharmaceutical products and other medicines including diagnostic tools and vaccines needed to prevent or treat potentially life threatening diseases to residents of impoverished countries with insufficient or no manufacturing capacity to make the medicines. The findings set forth determinations by the World Health Organization concerning the millions of low-income persons without regular access to medicines in lesser- developed or developing nations.

Section 3: This section requires the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to issue a compulsory license (permission to make and sell a patented product under this new Act) to permit generic companies to make and export medicines under the terms of WTO international agreements under several conditions.

The recipient country must be a least-developed nation, as defined by the United Nations, or a developing nation without the ability to manufacture the medicine in question.

The recipient country, called an ``eligible country'' in the bill, must notify the WTO of its interest in participating in this program.

Efforts must have been made by the generic company to buy the right to make and sell the medicine under normal business arrangements with the patent holders.

The medical product exported under this Act must be for life- threatening public health problems and can only be used in least- developed or developing nations, and is not for re-export except in identified circumstances relating to regional trade alliances.

Special labeling and packaging must be used to make clear that the product is sold under the authority of the WTO agreement only for use as allowed under agreement and this bill.

The permission to make and sell the product, the license, can not exceed 7 years, except that the license may be extended once.

The holder of the compulsory license shall pay a royalty to the patent holder, as determined by the Director of the PTO within a limited range of possible rates set forth in the bill, taking into account such factors as humanitarian needs, the economic value to the importing nation, and the need for low-cost pharmaceutical products by persons in the importing nation.

The maximum royalty for any shipment shall not exceed 4 percent times the commercial value of the pharmaceutical products to be exported under this Act under that supply agreement.

An alternative royalty payment approach, modeled after the approach enacted into law by Canada, would also be permitted with the same 4 percent maximum. In addition, the Director may accept combined applications from multiple eligible countries. Note that in emergency situations the Director may waive provisions of the bill in a manner consistent with the WTO agreements.

Section 4: This section makes clear that compulsory licenses issued under this Act shall not be considered an infringement of a patent.

Section 5: This section creates a diverse advisory board of academic, patent, trade, medical, international aid, and industry experts to advise the Director, and to report to the Congress, on ways to improve implementation of the bill to achieve its purposes. Mandatory funding for the board is provided out of the general fund of the U.S. at $1.5 million in fiscal years 2007 and 2008, with modestly declining amounts provided in subsequent years through 2011.

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

Mr. President, Senator McConnell has proposed an amendment to the immigration bill to modify the Help America Vote Act of 2002, ``HAVA'', by mandating that all States require government-issued photo identification from voters at polling places. Senator McConnell's amendment raises serious concerns by putting the policy ahead of the groundwork necessary to determine how and whether such a step should be taken.

I do not see his justification for attaching that proposal to this measure or to get ahead of the implementation of the REAL ID Act or recommendations by the Carter-Baker commission. The REAL ID Act has given us a great many problems, and there are a number of aspects that need to be adjusted or fixed. If the Rules Committee wants to take a comprehensive look at it and if Senator Dodd supports that effort, I will be very interested in what they have to say. I do not think it is wise to expand the purpose of the REAL ID Act without due deliberation. This is not the right time, nor is this bill the right place, to make hasty changes to Federal voting laws without the careful consideration such modifications deserve.

The Senate is currently considering the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act and is doing so in a deliberate, considered, and bipartisan manner. We should take the same approach to any enhancement of HAVA, which should include the considered input from the States, their election officials and citizens. HAVA expressly provides for State involvement in carrying out the improvements in the law. Senator McConnell's amendment would seem to undermine HAVA by preventing the States from performing their legislative role in devising voter identification procedures. The States play an integral role in carrying out the improvements in the Act, and we should let them perform this function without the undue interference.

Any proposal for federally standardized identification cards should be subject to hearings and debate beyond the constrained environment of the amendment process for the immigration bill. Before we vote on proposals for the use of a national identification card in our voting system, we must undertake a national debate about the technology, implementation, and the implications for the privacy rights of American citizens and the risks that required forms of voter identification have sometimes been used to intimidate minority voters or suppress their participation.

Mr. President, I hope that this morning we will begin to draw to a close the Republican filibuster against comprehensive immigration reform. I have been encouraged that since our return to this legislation this month, the President has spoken out in favor of comprehensive immigration reform with an essential component being a realistic path to earned citizenship for those who work hard, pay their taxes, and contribute so much to our American way of life. When Republicans filibustered against two cloture votes last month, including one on a motion by the Republican Leader, I was disappointed. I had hoped we would recognize the lawful, heartfelt protests of millions against the harsh House-passed criminalization measures. While they waved American flags, some of those fueling anti-immigrant feelings burned flags of other countries. I hope that through this debate we have been able to convince enough Senate Republicans to join us in our efforts and to appreciate the contributions of immigrants to our economy and our Nation.

This bill is not all that it should be. Yesterday we short-circuited efforts to make it more flexible for those persecuted around the world. This country has had a history of being welcoming to refugees and those seeking asylum from persecution. Yesterday the Senate turned its back on that history by refusing to allow the Secretary of State the flexibility needed after restrictive language was added by the REAL ID Act to our laws. I hope Senators will reconsider these issues with more open minds and hearts and a fully understanding of the lives being affected. Sadly too, many were spooked by false arguments.

I have made no secret that I preferred the better outline of the Judiciary Committee bill. The bill the Senate is now considering is a further compromise. Debate and amendments have added some improvements and some significant steps in the wrong direction. Besides the failures yesterday to readjust its asylum provisions to take into account the realities of oppressive forces in many parts of the world, I was most disappointed that the Senate appeared to be so anti-Hispanic in its adoption of the Inhofe English amendment. Yesterday Senator Salazar and

I wrote to the President following up on this provision and the comments of the Attorney General last week and weekend. We asked whether the President will continue to implement the language outreach policies of President Clinton's Executive Order 13166. A prompt and straightforward affirmative answer can go a long way toward rendering the Inhofe English amendment a symbolic stain rather than a serious impediment to immigrants and Americans for whom English is a second language. I ask consent that a copy of our letter be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. President, I hope that Republicans will not succeed in derailing comprehensive immigration reform through procedural gamesmanship. I hope the bipartisan coalition is strong enough to withstand this ploy. With respect to funding, I find it ironic that the Senator who added a billion dollars to the bill is now complaining that it is too expensive and that so many in the Republican majority who have failed to enact a budget and have violated the requirements of the law by their failure are considering using budget rules to defeat this measure.

We are long past the time when individual Americans dutifully file their taxes and the Congress is required to enact a Federal budget. That date, April 15, has both those legal requirements. But unlike filing tax returns and paying our income taxes, there is no provision in the law that allows the Republican-controlled Congress to call a timeout or obtain an extension. Although Republicans remain in charge of the White House, the Senate, and the House, they have utterly failed to enact a Federal budget. With respect to the budget, they have succeeded in turning the largest budget surplus in our history into the largest deficit. They have run unprecedented annual budget deficits for year after year of $300 billion to more than $400 billion. They have turned a $5 trillion surplus into a $9 trillion deficit. For Republicans to attempt to take advantage of technical budget rules in these circumstances is simply astonishing. I trust that the only affect will be to remind the American people of their gross budgetary mismanagement.

This bill is expensive to be sure. The enforcement provisions it contains and those that have been added will come at significant costs. When the Senate was considering the amendment proposed by the Senator from Alabama for $1 billion in fencing, I raised the question of how he intended to pay for these measures. I still await an answer. The billions this bill will cost now have not been accounted for and are not budgeted. Paying for the National Guard is requiring the diversion of funds that had been intended for capital accounts and technological improvements. We heard last week from the chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Committee about his frustrations and the difficulties of funding these measures.

I trust that the bipartisan coalition working for improved border security as part of comprehensive immigration reform will hold together to overcome procedural, technical, and budgetary objections. I have already suggested ways to pay for these costly enforcement and security measures. I did so last week in connection with the $1 billion fencing amendment of the Senator from Alabama.

After noting the irony of the President signing into law an extension of tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, I suggested that we end the millionaires' tax breaks and direct those revenues to border security. If we want to return to pay-as-you-go budgeting, that is an obvious way to do it.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4101

Mr. President, the Gregg amendment No. 4054 would undermine this tradition by significantly reducing the number of visas that are available under the Diversity Visa Program. Diversity visas were created in 1990 to ensure that America would always welcome immigrants from all parts of the globe, in the tradition of our forefathers. Diversity visas are available through a lottery system to applicants from nations that are underrepresented in other immigration programs. In order to apply, an individual must be from a country that has sent less than 50,000 immigrants to the U.S. in the preceding 5 years.

This special visa program allows immigrants from nations in Africa and from a number of developing nations to have a chance to apply to emigrate to the U.S. In 2004, diversity immigrants were just 5 percent all admissions of legal permanent residents, but diversity visas were 33 percent of all legal permanent resident admissions from Africa. For this reason, the Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP oppose the Gregg amendment. In addition to African nations like Ethiopia and Nigeria, immigrants from Ireland, Albania, Poland, and Ukraine have benefited from the program.

Diversity visa immigrants are not given a free pass to cross our borders and make a new life in American. Successful applicants must have at least a high school diploma and at least 2 years of work experience so that when they arrive in the U.S. they can contribute to the nation's economic health. They are not exempt from the tough security checks that all immigrants undergo. Applicants must complete consular processing overseas and pass Department of Homeland Security inspection. Fraud is prevented through fingerprinting and the use of digital photographs. Applications are screened and run through Homeland Security databases to ensure that an individual cannot game the system by filing multiple applications.

The Gregg amendment would take two-thirds of the 55,000 diversity visas that are available each year and redirect them to applicants with advanced degrees in science, math, and engineering. I support bringing more high-skilled immigrants to the U.S., but there are already a large number of such visa slots in the bill before us today. The bill raises the cap on H-1B visas from 65,000 per year to 115,000 per year. In addition, it adds an escalation clause so that in future years, if that new cap of 115,000 is met, the cap will be raised by 120 percent the following year. I think that this is a significant increase in high skilled worker visas. We can always revisit the issue in future years if the new levels do not provide an adequate number of visas for immigrants who bring science and technological skills to our Nation. We need not and should not undercut the Diversity Visa Program. The diversity visa program honors the hopes and aspirations of hard working and industrious individuals who want a chance to achieve the American dream.

Reserving the right to object, the Senator is referring to the Leahy-Coleman-Kennedy-Sununu-Lieberman-Chafee amendment. He had not mentioned a motion to table. He has a right to make a motion to table at any time. On the Leahy-Coleman-Sununu-Chafee-et al. amendment, I hope the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee would at least listen to this debate, of our efforts to protect these child soldiers before the Senator moves to table.

I have no objection to that. I just want to make my point. We are trying to protect these women who have been raped and mutilated and these children forced into involuntary servitude and others who have stood up when the United States has asked them to help defend us.

That is when I reserved my right to object.

Mr. President, this bipartisan amendment I offer is on behalf of the distinguished Presiding Officer, Senator Coleman, Senator Kennedy, Senator Lieberman, Senator Chafee, Senator Harkin, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Sununu.

We have had unintended consequences because of changes made in immigration laws after September 11. Rightly so, they were modified to protect national security, but we made them so broad that many people have been prevented from entering our Nation, people who do us no harm.

The PATRIOT Act and the subsequent REAL ID Act modified definitions of ``terrorist activity'' and ``material support'' in order to block entry into the United States of individuals who assist terrorist organizations. On its face, that made sense. No one wants terrorists or their supporters to come here as refugees.

But the new law failed to recognize that many foreigners, including children, are forced against their will to give food, shelter or other assistance to terrorist groups.

It also defined ``terrorist organization'' so broadly that groups that are

not engaged in activities against civilians--freedom fighters that the U.S. Government once provided training and other material support to-- like the Montagnards in Vietnam--are covered by this broad definition.

Our amendment would bring American laws once again into line with American values. It would give U.S. officials the ability to separate the victims from the aggressors, and it will bring our immigration laws into harmony with our government's foreign policy.

We can prevent the entry of those who would do America harm without closing our borders to genuine refugees who urgently need our help.

Let me give a few examples. A 13-year-old girl is kidnapped, she is forced to become a member of the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda, become a soldier, basically a sex slave of one of the commanders. She is ineligible for admission as a refugee under current law. That is wrong. In fact, it is immoral.

The same goes for people who provide material support to FARC, the terrorist group in Colombia. The support they gave was digging graves for other victims of the terrorists or giving them food, or otherwise being shot themselves.

Or a Liberian woman who was kidnapped by a rebel group and forced to serve as a sex slave. She was also forced to cook and do laundry for the rebels, so she is considered to have given material support and she is barred. That makes no sense.

People who are barred for supporting a terrorist organization--which is broadly defined as any group of two or more people fighting a government--includes refugees who our own government has long supported.

The Vietnamese Montagnards, who supported the United States 35 years ago, are barred. Members of the Karen Tribe fighting against the Burmese junta are barred. Some anti-Castro Cubans are barred.

Afghans who fought with the Northern Alliance, and even the NATO soldiers who trained them, are barred. We never intended to do that.

After 8 months of interagency inertia, the Secretary of State recently issued a waiver for one group of Burmese refugees who live in a refugee camp in Thailand. The use of the waiver authority was long overdue and I welcomed the Secretary's action. But the waiver was too limited, and will help only a minority of those deserving help, who are waiting to be resettled here.

When the waiver was issued, the State Department asserted that it did not plan to extend it to other groups in the near future.

Infighting between executive branch agencies is preventing people who have been victimized in the most brutal ways from obtaining asylum.

The bipartisan amendment that we offer today modifies the law so that before the overly broad definition of a terrorist organization is applied to a group of two or more individuals, the Secretary of State must determine that the group engages in terrorist activity which poses a threat to U.S. nationals or the national security of the United States.

That is the right balance. It protects U.S. security, and it provides sanctuary for victims of repression.

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

That is not bad. Mr. President, I did not do that intentionally, but I think it may be protecting the distinguished Presiding Officer. I now call up amendment No. 4117.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that of the time available to the Senator from Vermont, 4 minutes be reserved for the distinguished Presiding Officer and he be allowed to use that time.

Mr. President, I hope Senators will support this amendment. It has strong bipartisan support. It speaks to the moral goodness of our Nation. It ensures that the waiver in current law is available to asylum seekers who were forced to join terrorist groups or to provide material support against their will.

Completely innocent victims of ethnic and other forms of violence and repression are being denied asylum for engaging in the very activity they were forced to engage in, even though they pose no threat to U.S. security--child soldiers, sex slaves of people who were among the worst violators of human rights. Those victims are being excluded by our great, good Nation.

They deserve our compassion. Let us bring our laws back in line with our values.

I hope we will adopt this amendment.

Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Minnesota on the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record editorials from the New York Times and the Washington Post, and an op-ed from the Los Angeles Times in support of this amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withhold the remainder of our time.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield to the Senator from Illinois, with the understanding that 1 minute be retained to the Senator from Vermont.

How much time remains.

Mr. President, no one has any intention or desire to permit terrorists into this country. It is setting up a straw man to say something would let the Taliban in here. This amendment is not about the Taliban, incidentally. Our government supported them very strongly through our

CIA and others, as the press has reported, during the Soviet Union days. But this amendment is not about terrorists. It is about genuine refugees who have been victims of the very brutality that is now preventing them from receiving asylum in this country.

I will give a practical example. We trained and supported the Vietnamese Montagnards. We trained and equipped them. We asked them to fight with us. Now we deny them asylum because they risked their lives to do what we asked them to do. The Burmese, who are fighting a brutal regime, our government supports them. Many are refugees. But even though they have not been designated a foreign terrorist organization and our government supports them, they are inadmissible. There are cases of women and children threatened with torture and death and forced to provide food, shelter or become the sex slaves of members of terrorist groups. Our law bars them from asylum.

We are giving them discretion. I cannot believe that President Bush or Secretary Rice is going to misuse this discretion to allow in terrorists.

I was going to say, if the chairman will yield, that if we move to table now, we would have to vote now. I would have no objection if the chairman would give me some idea when those votes might be.

Mr. President, I would note to the distinguished chairman, one of the reasons I agreed to this schedule, to come here and do this debate now, was that there would be a vote now. I am going to be off the Hill for a period of time around dinnertime, and I would like to be here to vote on my own amendment. Could we agree on a time certain, like 5:30, for the tabling motion on the Leahy-Coleman-Sununu amendment?

Mr. President, I won't make a unanimous consent request. I will rely on the expertise and long experience of the chairman of the committee to get that vote in before 5:30.

I am not making a unanimous consent request. I am saying I am relying on the representations of the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania is going to speak to correct one part of the record, but both Senator Coleman and I want to make sure the record is correct and Senators know what they are voting on. Some Senators, in speaking in opposition to the Leahy-Coleman amendment, suggested that members of Hamas, the Kurdish PKK, or the Basque separatist group might obtain refugee status in the U.S. because those terrorists organizations do not specifically target the United States. That is totally incorrect. They are not allowed in with this. Hamas, the Basque separatists, the Kurdish PKK are already listed as terrorist organizations by our government. Members of the Taliban are also barred. These individuals could not obtain entry with this amendment. It was wrong to misrepresent the amendment that way. It is inflammatory to say the Leahy-Coleman amendment would aid members and supporters of designated terrorist organizations. It does not. It does not. It does not. This amendment in no way changes current law as suggested, but it would do something for those people who have been raped, tortured, or forced into helping terrorist organizations.

Parliamentary inquiry: Are these 10-minute rollcall votes now?

We should be able to finish in 40 or 45 minutes?