Floor Statements

Mr. President, it is interesting to hear the statistics being tossed around. I am sure the distinguished Senator did not mean by his chart to suggest somehow bribes have been offered to people in how they vote.

Mr. President, we have States without caps on medical malpractice recoveries. They have 14 percent more practicing physicians than those with caps. We hear about the increasingly burdensome medical malpractice premiums and, indeed, they are. Health care providers pay onerous amounts to be insured. That is why I have introduced a bill directed specifically toward medical malpractice insurance reform because, after all, there is no correlation between malpractice claims and rising insurance premiums. Between 2000 and 2004, insurers increased premiums 134 percent, even though payments remained flat.

They say this legislation drastically reduces insurance rates. Of course, the American Insurance Association has said we have not promised price reductions for tort reform. They have been quoted as saying: We wouldn't tell you or anyone the reason to pass tort reform would be to reduce insurance rates. In fact, a majority of States that have enacted caps have seen no reductions. In fact, on average, doctors in States with caps pay more for insurance than they do in States without caps.

The fact is, there is one place that makes money. Claims go down and insurance premiums go up. It is like the rising gas prices and the record oil company profits. Maybe we ought to be asking medical malpractice insurers exactly why their premiums are so exorbitant? If it is not because they are paying an increasing amount of claims. They are not doing that. Rates are going up much faster than any claims. It could be a soft stock market, bad investments, or greed. That is what we ought to ask about. In my State, without caps, we increased the number of doctors. So don't use this argument that somehow in rural areas, in rural States, we are going to lose doctors. We are gaining doctors. We should ask the insurance companies why their rates go up, even though the payments are flat.

We should also remember that America's courts belong to the American people, not to the special interests of the insurance companies. These bills are bad public policy. They are ill-timed.

We ought to be debating the priorities of the American people, not debating ways to make greater profits for the insurance companies. We ought to talk about energy policy and skyrocketing gas prices. Wouldn't it be good to have a real debate on the fiasco in Iraq today, a real debate about what has gone wrong in the war in Iraq? That could take a couple of months just to list them. A lot has gone wrong since the President announced: ``Mission Accomplished.''

We ought to be talking about the comprehensive immigration bill or stem cell research. What about the horrific genocide in Darfur?

So I am disappointed that the majority leader has decided instead that the Senate's and the public's valuable time should be taken up with these bills. I am also disappointed that he has decided to bypass any consideration of these bills. Instead, the insurance companies, and probably some of the large medical companies, have a special interest bill that benefits the insurance companies at the expense of patients with legitimate injuries coming straight to the floor.

These are real people. I will give you one example in my own State of Vermont. On April 7, 2000, Diana Levine had a severe migraine headache. She went to a health center. Ms. Levine was a musician. She received a painkiller, along with an injection of another sedative. That caused complications and she had two amputation surgeries of her left arm. A musician. She sued the corporate giant, Wyeth, for improper guidelines on the sedative because it didn't warn about these dangerous combinations. They knew about it, but they didn't warn anybody. She said:

I never expected to sue anyone in my life. . . . Sometimes

it takes something like this to make it known when a drug is

not being used right.

After a full trial, knowing that her career as a musician was gone, the jury said she deserved $2.4 million for past and future medical expenses and, of course, $5 million for the daily pain she is suffering. Most of that would have been cut out under this bill. That makes me think this bill is political and doesn't go to the root cause of medical malpractice.

Let's not forget that medical errors happen to 100,000 people each year. One out of over 100 hospitalized patients suffers negligent care. Just turn on the news every night and we hear about it. More people die as a result of medical errors than automobile and workplace accidents combined. More die from that than automobile accidents and workplace accidents combined, but only 3 percent of them even file a claim. These statistics tell us there is not so much a malpractice lawsuit problem as a medical safety problem.

I fail to see how arbitrarily limiting the rights of citizens addresses this serious problem, particularly because in many cases the judicial system is the only forum in which such an error is brought to light. Rather than looking for ways to limit our citizens' access to justice, we should look for ways in which we can encourage the medical community to strive for the highest standards in the delivery of its services. It is in our interest as citizens, and it is certainly in the interest of all the dedicated and caring people in the medical profession whose oath commands them to do no harm. My wife Marcelle dedicated her career to the care of others through nursing, and I know how seriously those in the medical profession take their solemn responsibilities. The best place for positive change to occur is from within the medical profession, not from within our courtrooms.

The bills on the floor today favor the interests of insurance companies over patients, the interests of profit over sound health care, and they provide illusory promises of lower insurance rates for doctors, while addressing none of the underlying causes of medical malpractice. This is not the fix that is needed.

We hear numerous complaints from politicians about the harm malpractice lawsuits cause to patient access and the medical profession. We hear claims about doctors practicing defensive medicine at the expense of innovation and aggressive treatment. We hear claims about doctors fleeing communities. We hear claims about the reluctance of our young people to enter the medical profession. We hear claims about pregnant women who cannot find obstetricians to provide care throughout pregnancy and birth. There might be some merit to this legislation if these claims we routinely hear were true. They are not.

The myths associated with medical malpractice lawsuits have virtually all been discredited. Two of the primary arguments in favor of capping noneconomic damages are lowering insurance premiums and preventing doctors from leaving their State or their profession. The available data suggests that these arguments are unfounded.

In my home State of Vermont, the most recent data show that the number of physicians practicing in the State has risen steadily from 1,918 doctors in 1996, to 2,589 doctors in 2004. The number of OB-GYNs in Vermont is also higher today than it was in 2000. Today Vermont residents benefit from 113 OB-GYNs, compared with 91 in 2000.

This trend exists nationally as well: The number of physicians nationally has risen between 1996 and 2004. We also now have more physicians under the age of 35 today than we did in 1996. The number of doctors per capita in this country has been steadily increasing since 1965. It is hard to understand how these trends can be characterized as the loss of people from the medical profession. There is also no correlation between a State damages cap and the number of doctors practicing in the State. Nationally, States without caps have 14 percent more practicing physicians.

As we consider the majority leader's bills, I urge other Senators to help expose the myths associated with the legislation we address today. In fairness to the American people, we should be debating the facts, not the myths. If we acknowledge that the real problem is medical malpractice and the injuries and deaths that result, and not the lawsuits that seek to remedy these harms, I know we can go a long way to helping the medical profession work from within to assure that doctors meet the highest possible standards and strive to prevent medical errors. After all, those in the medical profession are in the best position to understand what changes must occur, and

how best to make sure that needed changes occur. As an example of this I want to highlight the efforts of anesthesiologists, who accomplished a nearly sevenfold reduction in anesthesia-related errors through cooperative changes to their systems and practices. Not surprisingly, when anesthesia-related errors decreased, so did insurance premiums. This should be our model of how to effectively address medical malpractice. If we work together, between needed reforms in the insurance industry, and by supporting medical professionals in improving the critical work they do, I know we can tackle this problem effectively.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to support passage of H.J. Res. 83, which authorizes funds for a bust to be placed in the Supreme Court honoring the late Chief Justice Rehnquist. Chief Justice Rehnquist served admirably on the country's highest court for 33 years--19 as Chief Justice. It is appropriate that we honor his service as we have the other Chief Justices with a bust in the Supreme Court building.

I was privileged to have known the Chief Justice for many years and to have had the pleasure of serving with him on the Smithsonian Board of Regents. We also shared a love for the beautiful land and the independent people of Vermont--a place that served as a special refuge for the Chief Justice and his family over the years. His courage and commitment were without question, particularly recently when he attended the last inauguration and continued work to the end.

It would also be fitting in my view to honor other important figures in the Supreme Court's history. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Thurgood Marshall broke barriers and became the first woman and first African American justices on the Supreme Court in our Nation's long history. Both are role models not only for women and African Americans who will follow them on the Supreme Court, but for judges everywhere and all Americans. It would be appropriate to honor their significant accomplishments and contributions to the law, to the Supreme Court and to the country by including them among those honored at the Supreme Court building.

Mr. President, on April 6, I spoke on the floor about the humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur where more than 200,000 people have perished from genocidal violence, hunger and disease. Today I rise to strongly support the amendment offered by Senator Menendez to help meet the emergency need for additional funding for peacekeeping in Darfur.

President Bush, this Congress, and the international community have recognized the need for double the number of peacekeeping troops in Darfur to stabilize the crisis and begin to lay the groundwork for a resolution to this conflict. But the President has not requested the funds to support additional troops. Rhetoric is cheap, but when the issue is the survival of thousands of vulnerable people, words do not suffice. The $60 million proposed by the Senator from New Jersey is the minimum needed.

In addition to Sudan, there are 12 other U.N. peacekeeping missions that face severe funding shortages in fiscal year 2006. The State Department will be $383 million short in the next few months and will have no alternative but to defer those bills into next year, which creates a problem for our fiscal year 2007 appropriations process. The President's inadequate budget request, which is supported by the majority in Congress, ensures that we are perpetually behind in our U.N. peacekeeping payments.

This supplemental does not fund a U.N. mission to Darfur, which is what we all recognize is needed. Senator Menendez's amendment would at least provide initial funding for such a mission. Nor does this bill fund other U.N. peacekeeping missions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, and Haiti.

The U.S. does not contribute troops to any of these missions. But by not paying our share of peacekeeping dues on time the countries that contribute the troops are less willing to do so.

The amount we pay is a tiny fraction of what we would have to spend to deploy our own troops. The GAO recently found that it would ``cost the U.S. about twice as much as the U.N. to conduct peacekeeping'', and the U.S. only contributes 25 percent of the cost. That makes the savings 8 times less--the U.N. is half as expensive and we only pay a quarter of the costs. We are not prepared to put our troops into these countries and the costs would be far higher to the U.S. if we did.

The fiscal year 2006 budget we passed last year under-funded the U.S. dues for peacekeeping by $383 million. The U.S. has voted to expand the troop level in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, yet our share is underfunded by approximately $80 million in fiscal year 2006. Ensuring a smooth transition after the recent presidential election in Haiti is a stated priority of the administration, yet the peacekeeping mission to Haiti is underfunded by at least $40 million. Liberia, Cote d'Ivoire, and Kosovo are all underfunded in the next year by about $383 million.

So what happens when the U.S. or other donors do not pay or defer their peacekeeping bills? The U.N. adjusts its bill paying to keep its core missions running. And like anyone who hasn't been paid on time, the U.N. pays those accounts which have immediate needs and defers paying bills where creditors will grant it leeway. In the first half of the year, the U.N. system is relatively flush with cash from other countries' dues payments. It can and does shift from general accounts into those with funding shortfalls. But by mid-year, if major contributors are behind on their bill payments, the U.N. will resort to other tactics like paying for equipment, travel, and short-term logistical expenses while deferring payments to troop contributing nations that tend to be more forgiving of late U.N. payments.

Nations that contribute troops to U.N. peacekeeping bear the primary burden of covering for U.S. shortfalls to the U.N. peacekeeping account. When the U.S. repaid its arrears to the U.N. under the Helms- Biden deal, for example, the U.N. repaid fourteen to fifteen countries for up to 3 years' worth of deferred troop contributing costs.

Additionally, the United States' lack of payment for peacekeeping in the past has created significant resistance to U.S. efforts to change assessment rates and enact reform at the U.N. During the Helms-Biden era and before the U.S. committed to repaying its dues, the U.S. lost seats on key U.N. governing bodies because of its arrearages.

Over the course of the last several years, the United States has increasingly seen the need for U.N. peacekeeping. This has led to an unprecedented demand for peacekeeping troops. If we want to continue to increase this burden sharing arrangement, we need to pay troop contributing nations--like Pakistan, India, and South Africa--for services rendered. After all, they are putting their troops into harm's way so United States troops don't have to.

We face a situation where commitments were made, funds are needed, these countries are very unstable, and the commitment of U.S. troops is not an option. We must pay our share so the U.N. can send peacekeepers to Sudan, but also to support U.N. missions in other critical areas in the world.

Yes, I do. And I would add that the amendment also provides that up to $8.5 million should be made available to support the activities of the United States Institute of Peace in Iraq.

Mr. President, this amendment offered by myself, Senator Durbin and Senator Wyden, provides an additional $35 million for famine and disaster assistance for people in West Africa and in the Horn of Africa who are suffering from severe drought and hunger.

In last year's supplemental we provided additional funding for this purpose and according to USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance it was extremely helpful.

The situation this year is no less dire. Additional funding for famine and disaster assistance is required for the Horn of Africa where 15 million people are at risk and an additional 8 million people in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Somalia face severe food and water shortages. To put it another way, they are going to die if we and others don't do more to help them.

In Ethiopia alone, more than 740,000 people urgently need water, and more than 1.5 million children under five require immunizations against disease.

The shortfall in this account also threatens to jeopardize USAID's response to other emergencies in Africa. Humanitarian programs in Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi, and Cote d'Ivoire face cuts in funding despite worsening circumstances.

In Cote d'Ivoire, 500,000 internally displaced persons face growing hardship and insecurity. USAID does not have the resources to respond to the increased needs of vulnerable people, especially women, and children.

The situation in these countries is worse than pitiful. This amendment will not solve the problem, but it will save lives and help prevent the situation from getting even worse. It is what we need to do to give the relief workers who are trying to get food, water and shelter to these people the resources they need.

Mr. President, the devastation caused by Hurricane Stan did not receive the attention that it should have by the Congress. That was partly because it was overshadowed by the terrible earthquake in Pakistan and by Hurricane Katrina.

Whole villages in Guatemala were buried by some 900 mudslides, 670 people died, 845 are missing, and 475,000 were directly affected. Many of them lost their homes, their property and their livelihoods as a result of Hurricane Stan. Most of the destruction occurred in one of the poorest parts of

the country which is the source of the majority of Guatemalan immigrants to the United States. Yet so far we have contributed only a few million dollars.

My amendment provides an additional $12 million for assistance for Guatemala for relief and reconstruction activities related to Hurricane Stan. It is not as much as I wish we could provide, but I know that it will help address the most urgent needs of people who are trying to rebuild their lives.

I want to thank Senator McConnell for agreeing to accept this amendment.

Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of amendment 3662 by my friend from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold. His amendment, which would have ensured continued support for the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, was ruled ``nongermane'' by the Parliamentarian.

This is inexplicable and unfortunate. But the real travesty is that the majority, which could simply agree to accept this amendment, would prefer to hide behind the Parliamentarian's ruling and let it die.

By all accounts, with the exception of the snipes of some anonymous Pentagon officials and their friends in the majority party who do not want the colossal blunders of the Iraq reconstruction program exposed to the light of day, the special inspector general has done an excellent job under difficult and dangerous conditions.

He has uncovered numerous instances of waste and fraud--some, shocking in their audacity--and there are dozens of investigations and prosecutions under way.

There is another $1.6 billion for Iraq reconstruction in this supplemental for precisely the same types of activities that have been funded under the Iraq relief and reconstruction fund.

But in this bill they are funded under traditional foreign operations accounts, not under the Iraq relief and reconstruction fund.

What this means is that, by not adopting the Feingold amendment, the special inspector general will not have oversight of these funds.

Apparently the idea is for the State Department inspector general to take over this responsibility. But that office has no people in Iraq, no plan or budget to put people there, and no ability to do the job any time soon. They have said so themselves.

This is nothing more than a transparent attempt to shut down the only effective oversight of this massive reconstruction program which has been plagued by mismanagement and fraud.

Projects have been poorly designed, grossly over priced, and many will never be finished, while U.S. contractors such as Halliburton have made off with huge profits.

We are told by our friends in the majority, acting on behalf of some in the Pentagon and the White House who want to shut down the Office of the Special Inspector General, that they just want to return to the ``regular order.'' That is their explanation for

turning this responsibility over to the State Department.

That is laughable. There is nothing that resembles the regular order in this multibillion-dollar supplemental, none of which is paid for. In one breath they argue that they cannot pay for the war through the regular appropriations process because it is an extraordinary expense. In the next breath they make the opposite argument to justify shutting down the Office of the Special Inspector General.

If this were really about the regular order, the White House would support the amendment by Senator Byrd to pay the cost of this war, rather than continue to ignore the regular budget process and fund the war off budget, leaving it to future generations to pay.

This is just another example of the hypocrisy of the President's bankrupt fiscal policy, and of those who continue to defend it in Congress. Use a figleaf to make it appear as if you support the regular budget process when in fact you are weakening it. This also is the latest example of the majority party's distaste and even disdain for oversight and for the checks and balances in our system that are supposed to root out corruption, waste, fraud and abuse and to make government work better as government spends the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars.

The special inspector general has a difficult job. His job is to find the truth, and sometimes the truth is hard for government agencies to accept. Sometimes they would rather not have the spotlight shined on their mistakes.

But the special inspector general works for American taxpayers, not for the Pentagon, and not for Halliburton.

The Feingold amendment would have ensured continued oversight of the very programs the special inspector general was created to oversee. I want to commend him for his attention to this issue and his effort to protect American taxpayers. By using a technical sleight-of-hand maneuver to prevent the Senate from voting on this amendment--a vote they know they would lose--the majority has dealt a blow to oversight of the shoddy, wasteful, and criminal failures of the Iraq reconstruction program.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join the chairmen of both the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, the Democratic and Republican leaders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, and members of Congress from both parties to introduce a bill to reauthorize and reinvigorate the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The bicameral, bipartisan introduction of this bill reflects not only its historic importance as a guarantor of the right to vote for all Americans, but also the broad consensus that the expiring provisions must be extended this year without delay.

There are few things as critical to our Nation, and to American citizenship, as voting. Like the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, the right to vote is foundational because it secures the effective exercise of all other rights. As people are able to register, vote, and elect candidates of their choice, their interests and rights get attention. The very legitimacy of our government is dependent on the access all Americans have to the political process.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was the result of an historic struggle for civil rights led by such American heroes as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Coretta Scott King and Rosa Parks, who refused to be treated as second-class citizens. That struggle reached a crucial turning point on March 7, 1965, on the Edmund Pettis Bridge in Selma, AL, when State troopers brutally attacked John Lewis and his fellow civil rights marchers who were fighting for their right to vote.

The events of that day, now known as ``Bloody Sunday,'' were captured in newspapers and on televisions across the country, and those powerful images marked a crucial turning point in securing the right to vote for all Americans. A few days after the violence of Bloody Sunday, President Lyndon Johnson outlined the proposed Voting Rights Act of 1965, before a joint session of Congress. Within months, Congress passed it so that the Constitution's guarantees of equal access to the electoral process, regardless of race, would not be undermined by discriminatory practices.

The enactment of the Voting Rights Act in 1965 transformed the landscape of political inclusion. Prior to the Act, minorities of all races faced major barriers to participation in the political process, through the use of such devices as poll taxes, exclusionary primaries, intimidation by voting officials, language barriers, and systematic vote dilution. We have made great gains since that time, but our work is not finished. The record established in 10 hearings in the House of Representatives indicates that the tools provided by the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act remain necessary for protecting the voting rights of minority Americans in this country.

Among the Act's most critical protections are the pre-clearance provisions of Section 5, which prevent discriminatory laws from going into practice. The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 would extend these protections for 25 years, retaining the most effective measures to fight certain kinds of pervasive and recurring discrimination.

The insidious discriminatory tactics that led to the original Voting Rights Act were deeply rooted. In the annals of our Nation, this fight dates back almost 100 years, to the ratification of the 15th Amendment in 1870, the last of the post-Civil War Reconstruction amendments. It took implementation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for people of all races in many parts of our country to gain the effective exercise of rights guaranteed 95 years earlier by the 15th Amendment. The pre- clearance provisions were one of the primary reasons this Act succeeded where earlier attempts had failed. Section 5 requires certain covered jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to pre-clear all voting changes with either the Department of Justice or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In doing so, Section 5 combats the practices in these jurisdictions of shifting from one invalidated discriminatory tactic to another, which had undermined earlier efforts to enforce 15th Amendment guarantees.

We have made significant progress toward a more inclusive democracy over the past four decades since the enactment of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. However, I fear that if we fail to reauthorize the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act, our country is likely to backslide. We must make sure those gains do not suffer the same fate as the gains in voting rights made during Reconstruction.

After the Civil War, the Reconstruction Act promised that the guarantees of the 15th Amendment would be realized. Between 1870 and 1900, 22 African Americans served in the United States Congress. In 1868, Louisiana elected an African-American Lieutenant Governor, Oscar Dunn, and 87 African Americans held seats in the South Carolina legislature. However, these Reconstruction-era gains in African- American voting and representation proved to be short-lived. Following the end of Reconstruction, the rights of African Americans to vote and to hold office were virtually eliminated in many areas through discriminatory legal barriers, intimidation, and violence. The changes were swift, systematic and severe. By 1896, Representative George White of North Carolina was the only African American remaining in the U.S. Congress, and it would take 72 years after Representative White left Congress for African-American voters in the South to elect another candidate of their choice to Congress.

In Mississippi, the percentage of African-American voting-age men registered to vote fell from more than 90 percent during Reconstruction to less than 6 percent in 1892. Between 1896 and 1900, the number of African-American voters in Louisiana was reduced from 130,000 to a mere 5,000. Unlike their short-lived gains made during Reconstruction, African-American voters' exclusion from the ballot box was persistent. Only 3 percent of voting-age African-American men and women in the South were registered to vote in 1940, only 1 percent in Mississippi-- just 1 percent. These numbers are staggering, and they provide a history lesson we should not ignore.

As part of the Voting Rights Act reauthorization in 1975, Congress added Section 203, which requires bilingual voting assistance for certain language minority groups. This provision was enacted pursuant to congressional power to enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments. Section 203 has been a key factor to expanding the inclusiveness of democracy to all citizens and has led to extraordinary gains in representation and participation made by Asian-American and Hispanic-American citizens. Like Section 5, Section 203 is expiring in 2007. The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and

Amendments Act of 2006 would extend these critical protections for 25 years.

Hispanic-American populations have been one of the primary minority language groups to benefit from the protections of the bilingual provisions of the Voting Rights Act. For example effective implementation of the bilingual provisions in San Diego County, CA, helped increase voter registration by more than 20 percent. And voter turnout among Hispanic Americans in New Mexico rose 26 percent between 2000 and 2004 after television and radio spots in Spanish educated listeners about voter registration and absentee ballots.

Voting rights belong to people who are American citizens. They are trying to vote but many of them are struggling with the English language due to disparities in education and the incremental process of learning. It is imperative that all citizens be able to fully exercise their rights as citizens, particularly a right as fundamental as the right to vote. Renewing the expiring language provisions of the Voting Rights Act will continue to help make that a reality.

Rather than merely extending the Voting Rights Act, Congress now has an opportunity to reinvigorate the Act, strengthening and improving its remedies. The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 does so by clarifying certain parts of Section 5 to give clear guidance to the Courts and to restore the original understanding of the Act. Two recent Supreme Court decisions have significantly narrowed Section 5's effectiveness and undermined the purposes of the Act.

The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 remedies the Supreme Court's holding in Reno v. Bossier Parish, by making clear that a voting rule change motivated by any discriminatory purpose violates Section 5. Under the holding in Reno v. Bossier Parish, certain voting rule changes passed with the intent to discriminate against minorities could pass Section 5 muster. Because such an interpretation is inconsistent with purposes of the Voting Rights Act to eliminate discriminatory tactics that undermine the guarantees of the 15th Amendment, the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act fixes this inconsistency by clarifying that a voting rule change motivated by any discriminatory purpose also cannot be pre- cleared.

The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 also remedies the Supreme Court's holding in Georgia v. Ashcroft. Under the test established in Georgia for assessing a jurisdiction's challenge to denial of Section 5 pre-clearance, the court can give greater weight to numerous undefined considerations than to the ability of a minority community to elect a candidate of its choice. This test is as difficult to administer as it is contrary to the purposes of the Act. This act fixes both of these problems by restoring the original understanding that the purpose of the Voting Rights Act is to protect the minority community's ability to elect their preferred candidates of choice and by setting forth defined factors.

In addition to restoring the Act's original meaning, this Act makes changes to the expiring Federal examiners and observers provisions to better allocate resources for combating discrimination in voting. The Voting Rights Act provides for Federal examiners to ensure that legally qualified persons are free to register for Federal, State, and local elections and that observers to observe whether citizens who are eligible to vote are able to exercise the right to vote. Federal observers are the most frequently used federal oversight tool in voting and the only Federal officials authorized to enter polls and places where votes are tabulated. This Act eliminates Federal examiners because they have not been appointed to jurisdictions certified for coverage in more than 20 years, and other laws such as the Help America Vote Act now address the concern of voting rolls. At the same time, the bill strengthens the observers provisions to allow the assignment of federal observers upon finding that there is a reasonable belief that a violation of the 14th or 15th Amendments will occur, without having to first certify federal examiners.

The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendment Act also removes an impediment to effective protection of voting rights by authorizing the prevailing party in a lawsuit brought under Section 2 to recover expert costs as part of the attorney fees already authorized. This will have a significant impact on the ability of litigants to successfully combat discrimination in court.

The process of reauthorization began in the House of Representatives, where Representatives Nadler, Chabot and Watt presided over 10 hearings on the effectiveness and continuing need for the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Last week, the distinguished House Judiciary chairman and ranking member appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee and introduced the extensive record from those hearings. I am grateful for the hard work that has been done in the House, and I want to thank Chairman Specter for agreeing to move forward promptly with Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the expiring provisions.

Congress has reauthorized and revitalized the Act four times, each time with overwhelmingly bipartisan support. As I noted last week in welcoming the House Judiciary chairman and ranking member, we are repeating the bicameral and bipartisan process of the 1982 reauthorization. In 1982, Chairman Specter and I were both Members of the Judiciary Committee, along with Senators Kennedy, Biden, Hatch and Grassley. Under the chairmanship of Senator Strom Thurmond, reauthorization was reported by the Judiciary Committee and passed both houses of Congress. I am hopeful that our Committee can accomplish the work that needs to be done and report this bill to the full Senate before the Memorial Day recess.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most important laws Congress has ever passed, helping to usher the country out of a history of discrimination and into the greater inclusion of all Americans in the decisions about our Nation's future. Our democracy and our Nation have been better and richer for it. While I hope some day these extraordinary remedies are not needed, I urge the Senate to build on the work done in the House of Representatives to extend the expiring provisions so that we can eliminate recurring discrimination and make sure that the gains we have made are not lost. I am heartened that this is not a partisan issue benefiting one party or another. Rather, as demonstrated by the bicameral and bipartisan process we continue for reauthorizing and revitalizing the Act's expiring provisions, this is about making our democracy reflect the will of all of the American people.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join the chairmen of both the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, the Democratic and Republican leaders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, and members of Congress from both parties to introduce a bill to reauthorize and reinvigorate the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The bicameral, bipartisan introduction of this bill reflects not only its historic importance as a guarantor of the right to vote for all Americans, but also the broad consensus that the expiring provisions must be extended this year without delay.

There are few things as critical to our Nation, and to American citizenship, as voting. Like the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, the right to vote is foundational because it secures the effective exercise of all other rights. As people are able to register, vote, and elect candidates of their choice, their interests and rights get attention. The very legitimacy of our government is dependent on the access all Americans have to the political process.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was the result of an historic struggle for civil rights led by such American heroes as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Coretta Scott King and Rosa Parks, who refused to be treated as second-class citizens. That struggle reached a crucial turning point on March 7, 1965, on the Edmund Pettis Bridge in Selma, AL, when State troopers brutally attacked John Lewis and his fellow civil rights marchers who were fighting for their right to vote.

The events of that day, now known as ``Bloody Sunday,'' were captured in newspapers and on televisions across the country, and those powerful images marked a crucial turning point in securing the right to vote for all Americans. A few days after the violence of Bloody Sunday, President Lyndon Johnson outlined the proposed Voting Rights Act of 1965, before a joint session of Congress. Within months, Congress passed it so that the Constitution's guarantees of equal access to the electoral process, regardless of race, would not be undermined by discriminatory practices.

The enactment of the Voting Rights Act in 1965 transformed the landscape of political inclusion. Prior to the Act, minorities of all races faced major barriers to participation in the political process, through the use of such devices as poll taxes, exclusionary primaries, intimidation by voting officials, language barriers, and systematic vote dilution. We have made great gains since that time, but our work is not finished. The record established in 10 hearings in the House of Representatives indicates that the tools provided by the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act remain necessary for protecting the voting rights of minority Americans in this country.

Among the Act's most critical protections are the pre-clearance provisions of Section 5, which prevent discriminatory laws from going into practice. The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 would extend these protections for 25 years, retaining the most effective measures to fight certain kinds of pervasive and recurring discrimination.

The insidious discriminatory tactics that led to the original Voting Rights Act were deeply rooted. In the annals of our Nation, this fight dates back almost 100 years, to the ratification of the 15th Amendment in 1870, the last of the post-Civil War Reconstruction amendments. It took implementation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for people of all races in many parts of our country to gain the effective exercise of rights guaranteed 95 years earlier by the 15th Amendment. The pre- clearance provisions were one of the primary reasons this Act succeeded where earlier attempts had failed. Section 5 requires certain covered jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to pre-clear all voting changes with either the Department of Justice or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In doing so, Section 5 combats the practices in these jurisdictions of shifting from one invalidated discriminatory tactic to another, which had undermined earlier efforts to enforce 15th Amendment guarantees.

We have made significant progress toward a more inclusive democracy over the past four decades since the enactment of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. However, I fear that if we fail to reauthorize the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act, our country is likely to backslide. We must make sure those gains do not suffer the same fate as the gains in voting rights made during Reconstruction.

After the Civil War, the Reconstruction Act promised that the guarantees of the 15th Amendment would be realized. Between 1870 and 1900, 22 African Americans served in the United States Congress. In 1868, Louisiana elected an African-American Lieutenant Governor, Oscar Dunn, and 87 African Americans held seats in the South Carolina legislature. However, these Reconstruction-era gains in African- American voting and representation proved to be short-lived. Following the end of Reconstruction, the rights of African Americans to vote and to hold office were virtually eliminated in many areas through discriminatory legal barriers, intimidation, and violence. The changes were swift, systematic and severe. By 1896, Representative George White of North Carolina was the only African American remaining in the U.S. Congress, and it would take 72 years after Representative White left Congress for African-American voters in the South to elect another candidate of their choice to Congress.

In Mississippi, the percentage of African-American voting-age men registered to vote fell from more than 90 percent during Reconstruction to less than 6 percent in 1892. Between 1896 and 1900, the number of African-American voters in Louisiana was reduced from 130,000 to a mere 5,000. Unlike their short-lived gains made during Reconstruction, African-American voters' exclusion from the ballot box was persistent. Only 3 percent of voting-age African-American men and women in the South were registered to vote in 1940, only 1 percent in Mississippi-- just 1 percent. These numbers are staggering, and they provide a history lesson we should not ignore.

As part of the Voting Rights Act reauthorization in 1975, Congress added Section 203, which requires bilingual voting assistance for certain language minority groups. This provision was enacted pursuant to congressional power to enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments. Section 203 has been a key factor to expanding the inclusiveness of democracy to all citizens and has led to extraordinary gains in representation and participation made by Asian-American and Hispanic-American citizens. Like Section 5, Section 203 is expiring in 2007. The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and

Amendments Act of 2006 would extend these critical protections for 25 years.

Hispanic-American populations have been one of the primary minority language groups to benefit from the protections of the bilingual provisions of the Voting Rights Act. For example effective implementation of the bilingual provisions in San Diego County, CA, helped increase voter registration by more than 20 percent. And voter turnout among Hispanic Americans in New Mexico rose 26 percent between 2000 and 2004 after television and radio spots in Spanish educated listeners about voter registration and absentee ballots.

Voting rights belong to people who are American citizens. They are trying to vote but many of them are struggling with the English language due to disparities in education and the incremental process of learning. It is imperative that all citizens be able to fully exercise their rights as citizens, particularly a right as fundamental as the right to vote. Renewing the expiring language provisions of the Voting Rights Act will continue to help make that a reality.

Rather than merely extending the Voting Rights Act, Congress now has an opportunity to reinvigorate the Act, strengthening and improving its remedies. The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 does so by clarifying certain parts of Section 5 to give clear guidance to the Courts and to restore the original understanding of the Act. Two recent Supreme Court decisions have significantly narrowed Section 5's effectiveness and undermined the purposes of the Act.

The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 remedies the Supreme Court's holding in Reno v. Bossier Parish, by making clear that a voting rule change motivated by any discriminatory purpose violates Section 5. Under the holding in Reno v. Bossier Parish, certain voting rule changes passed with the intent to discriminate against minorities could pass Section 5 muster. Because such an interpretation is inconsistent with purposes of the Voting Rights Act to eliminate discriminatory tactics that undermine the guarantees of the 15th Amendment, the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act fixes this inconsistency by clarifying that a voting rule change motivated by any discriminatory purpose also cannot be pre- cleared.

The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 also remedies the Supreme Court's holding in Georgia v. Ashcroft. Under the test established in Georgia for assessing a jurisdiction's challenge to denial of Section 5 pre-clearance, the court can give greater weight to numerous undefined considerations than to the ability of a minority community to elect a candidate of its choice. This test is as difficult to administer as it is contrary to the purposes of the Act. This act fixes both of these problems by restoring the original understanding that the purpose of the Voting Rights Act is to protect the minority community's ability to elect their preferred candidates of choice and by setting forth defined factors.

In addition to restoring the Act's original meaning, this Act makes changes to the expiring Federal examiners and observers provisions to better allocate resources for combating discrimination in voting. The Voting Rights Act provides for Federal examiners to ensure that legally qualified persons are free to register for Federal, State, and local elections and that observers to observe whether citizens who are eligible to vote are able to exercise the right to vote. Federal observers are the most frequently used federal oversight tool in voting and the only Federal officials authorized to enter polls and places where votes are tabulated. This Act eliminates Federal examiners because they have not been appointed to jurisdictions certified for coverage in more than 20 years, and other laws such as the Help America Vote Act now address the concern of voting rolls. At the same time, the bill strengthens the observers provisions to allow the assignment of federal observers upon finding that there is a reasonable belief that a violation of the 14th or 15th Amendments will occur, without having to first certify federal examiners.

The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendment Act also removes an impediment to effective protection of voting rights by authorizing the prevailing party in a lawsuit brought under Section 2 to recover expert costs as part of the attorney fees already authorized. This will have a significant impact on the ability of litigants to successfully combat discrimination in court.

The process of reauthorization began in the House of Representatives, where Representatives Nadler, Chabot and Watt presided over 10 hearings on the effectiveness and continuing need for the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Last week, the distinguished House Judiciary chairman and ranking member appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee and introduced the extensive record from those hearings. I am grateful for the hard work that has been done in the House, and I want to thank Chairman Specter for agreeing to move forward promptly with Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the expiring provisions.

Congress has reauthorized and revitalized the Act four times, each time with overwhelmingly bipartisan support. As I noted last week in welcoming the House Judiciary chairman and ranking member, we are repeating the bicameral and bipartisan process of the 1982 reauthorization. In 1982, Chairman Specter and I were both Members of the Judiciary Committee, along with Senators Kennedy, Biden, Hatch and Grassley. Under the chairmanship of Senator Strom Thurmond, reauthorization was reported by the Judiciary Committee and passed both houses of Congress. I am hopeful that our Committee can accomplish the work that needs to be done and report this bill to the full Senate before the Memorial Day recess.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most important laws Congress has ever passed, helping to usher the country out of a history of discrimination and into the greater inclusion of all Americans in the decisions about our Nation's future. Our democracy and our Nation have been better and richer for it. While I hope some day these extraordinary remedies are not needed, I urge the Senate to build on the work done in the House of Representatives to extend the expiring provisions so that we can eliminate recurring discrimination and make sure that the gains we have made are not lost. I am heartened that this is not a partisan issue benefiting one party or another. Rather, as demonstrated by the bicameral and bipartisan process we continue for reauthorizing and revitalizing the Act's expiring provisions, this is about making our democracy reflect the will of all of the American people.

Mr. President, I assume the opponents of these nominations would want to be recognized, or the Republican majority supporting him. I understand there are three Republicans to speak on the judges and one Democrat is allowed to speak.

No one is here, so I will speak.

I will support this nominee, Michael Barrett. He has the support of his home State Senators. I have also heard from both Democrats and Republicans in Ohio. That makes it worth supporting. In fact, the nomination of such consensus nominees is an indication of what should be done in States, and would lead to the confirmation of more judges. In January 2001, we were following a shutdown of judges going through. As the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, the Republicans were determined to block virtually all of President Clinton's judges for a long period of time. I became chairman and for 17 months moved a record number of judges for President Bush, 100. Actually, since 2001, while the Republican majority has not moved President Bush's judicial nominees anywhere near as fast as I did, we have still moved 238. That includes two Supreme Court Justices, and 43 circuit court judges. However, we do have some that create problems.

Unfortunately, as demonstrated by the recent withdrawals of several nominees, all too often this White House seems more interested in rewarding cronies and picking political fights than in selecting lifetime appointments after thorough vetting. Sadly, the Republican Senate has proceeded to rubber stamp these important nominations and failed in its role as a constitutional check on the President.

The controversial nominations of Judge Terrence Boyle and Brett Kavanaugh are contemporary cases in point. With the extreme right-wing and special interest groups agitating for a fight over judicial nominations, the Republican leader of the Senate is answering their demands by seeking to force Senate debate on these controversial nominees. Rather than focus on proposals to end the subsidies to big oil and rein in gas prices, rather than devote our time to immigration reform legislation, rather than completing a budget, the Republican leader came to the floor last week to signal a fight over controversial judicial nominations is in the offing. Such a controversial maneuver serves only to divide and distract us from America's real problems. During this President's administration, gas prices have more than doubled and undocumented immigrants have doubled, but judicial vacancies have been cut in half from the time when Republicans in the Senate were stalling President Clinton's judicial nominations. Despite the real problems that confront Americans with respect to security, health insurance, rising health costs, rising energy costs, and spiraling deficits and debt, some would rather pick an election year fight over judicial nominations.

In fact, I mentioned Judge Boyle. I contrast his nomination to the nomination of Michael Barrett. Michael Barrett, as I said, will go through easily. I will support him. I will vote for him, as I told the distinguished Senator, the former Lieutenant Governor of Ohio, now senior Member of the U.S. Senate, Mr. DeWine.

But you take somebody like Judge Boyle. Here is somebody who has violated every judicial ethic you can think of. He ruled on multiple cases involving corporations in which he held investments. In at least one instance--this is chutzpah beyond all understanding--he was presiding over a case involving General Electric, and while doing that, he bought stock in General Electric; then, 2 months later, he ruled in favor of General Electric.

Now, in the first year of law school you might get an example like this because it is so clear-cut and easy to understand. This is amazing--amazing--not withstanding all the other conflicts of interest he had in other cases. Whether or not it turns out that Judge Boyle broke Federal law or canons of judicial ethics, these types of conflicts of interest have no place on the Federal bench.

This is not the first judicial nominee to engage in these kinds of apparent ethical lapses. Less than two months ago, the President withdrew the nomination of Judge James Payne to the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit after information became public about that nominee's rulings in a number of cases in which he appears to have had conflicts of interest. Those conflicts were pointed out not by the administration's screening process or by the ABA, but by journalists.

During the last few months, President Bush also withdrew the nominations of Judge Henry Saad to the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit and Judge Daniel P. Ryan to the Eastern District of Michigan. And we saw the arrest of another Bush administration official and former judicial nominee to the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, Claude Allen, who had earlier withdrawn as a nominee and more recently resigned his position as a top domestic policy adviser to the President. When we are considering lifetime appointments of judicial officers who are entrusted with protecting the rights of Americans, it is important to be thorough. Unfortunately, all too often this White House seems more interested in rewarding cronies.

They add to the long list of nominations by this President that have been withdrawn. Among the more well known are Bernard Kerik to head the Department of Homeland Security and Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. It was, as I recall, reporting in a national magazine that doomed the Kerik nomination. It was opposition within the President's own party that doomed the Miers nomination.

Over the weekend we heard that this administration's former FDA director is under investigation and its political director testified, again before a federal grand jury. Of course, Mr. Libby remains under indictment, and Messrs. Safavian, Scanlon, Abramoff and a number of House Republicans are caught up in another criminal probe.

In light of this long list of failures of the White House to fulfill its commitments to the American people to be above reproach and its lackluster vetting process, it is more important than ever that the Senate and the Senate Judiciary Committee afford nominees the kind of careful scrutiny that will yield enough information to decide on a nominee's fitness for an important appointment. In Judge Boyle's case, not only were his answers to the committee's questions evasive, but he failed to produce even the unpublished opinions he issued from the bench.

I am also concerned that the Senate Judiciary Committee is being required to consider the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit without a complete record. The Democratic members of the committee have twice asked for another hearing in connection with his nomination. Mr. Kavanaugh failed to provide meaningful and substantive responses to many of the questions posed to him at his first hearing and he delayed for seven months before providing evasive and incomplete answers to written questions.

In addition, a new hearing is warranted because several troubling issues have come to light since his initial nomination. As Associate White House Counsel and staff secretary, Mr. Kavanaugh has served in the inner circle of the White House at a time when many controversial policies and decisions were being considered. Senators have not had a chance to question him about his role in connection with those matters. For example, what was Mr. Kavanaugh's role in connection with the warrantless spying on Americans? What was his involvement in the policies affecting detainee treatment and interrogation? What was his involvement in connection with military tribunals, torture, and rendition of prisoners to other countries? Given the scandals now plaguing the White House, it is important to know whether Mr. Kavanaugh has had a role in connection with the actions of Jack Abramoff, Michael Scanlon, David Safavian, the matters being investigated in connection with the Plame matter, and many other matters.

The wall of secrecy that the administration has maintained is no environment in which carefully to consider an administration insider for a lifetime appointment to an important Federal judicial position.

I see the distinguished Senator from Ohio is in the Chamber. I urge people,

do not just do a rubberstamp just because it is a member of your party who nominated these people. I think of the concern I heard from Republicans in this body when I objected to a judicial nominee to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Claude Allen. Nobody said a word when he got arrested for fraud. But I bet you they breathed a sigh of relief that I blocked it before.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about recent events in Nepal.

As Senators are aware, last February 1 King Gyanendra seized absolute power, dissolved the multiparty government, and imprisoned his political opponents. He justified his power grab as necessary to bring peace and democracy to that impoverished Himalayan nation that has been in the throes of a bloody conflict with Maoist insurgents for a decade.

Yet, as many predicted, in the past year the Maoists have gained strength while Nepal's fledgling democratic institutions have been badly weakened. Finally recognizing that the King's real purpose was to consolidate his own power and take the country back to the feudal days of his father, the people lost patience.

Over the past few weeks, hundreds of thousands of Nepali citizens took to the streets in a show of defiance and braved bullets, clubs, and tear gas to force the King to back down.

Tomorrow, Nepal's Parliament will reconvene and it is expected to begin discussion of a date for the election of a constituent assembly to draft a new constitution. Among the key issues to be addressed is what role, if any, the monarchy will have in Nepal's democratic future. Another necessary step will be to guarantee the army's subservience to civilian authority.

I wish to pay tribute to the people of Nepal. They have suffered for generations from poverty, discrimination, corruption, and repression. Yet through it all they have persevered, and they have shown that not even the most recalcitrant despot who uses the national army as his own palace guard can withstand the will of the people when they are prepared to risk their lives for freedom.

Today, Nepal begins a new chapter in its history. The future is far from certain and the road ahead is filled with potential pitfalls. But no one can doubt the opportunity that this moment offers, nor the importance of what is at stake for Nepal.

It is up to Nepal's political parties, whose leaders have too often put their own personal ambitions ahead of the good of the country, to show that they have a practical vision for the future and that they can govern. In a democracy that means dialogue, it means tolerance, it means compromise, it means acting in good faith as representatives of the people, it means keeping one's commitments, and it means being willing to step aside for the next generation when it is their turn.

The Maoists must also recognize that the Nepali people's foremost desire is peace. The Maoists have announced another cease-fire, which is welcome, but there is no justification for any return to violence. Too many innocent people have died and too many Nepali families have suffered needlessly. It is time for the Maoists to renounce violence and join in a national dialogue to restore democracy and develop a strategy to address the root causes of the conflict.

The international community, particularly India, the United States, Great Britain, China, and the United Nations, also have an important role to play in supporting Nepal at this critical time. Like Afghanistan, East Timor, and other unstable countries emerging from years of conflict, Nepal will need technical assistance for the election of a constituent assembly and the drafting of a new constitution. It will need international monitors of the cease-fire and of the observance of human rights by both Maoists and the army. It will need resources to help build the institutions of democracy and to hold accountable those on both sides of the conflict who are responsible for atrocities.

During the 5 years of his troubled rein, King Gyanendra took Nepal to the brink of disaster. He stubbornly ignored the pleas of Nepal's friends. He shamelessly used the army to trample on the people's cherished rights. He squandered his opportunity to continue on the path of his predecessor to nurture democracy and help guide Nepal into the 21st century.

The Nepali people, 15 of whom gave their lives in the protests, want nothing less than a democratic future. They want a government that respects the worth of every Nepali, regardless of the family they come from, their ethnicity, religion, gender or profession. It is time for Nepal's leaders to show that they are worthy of the Nepali people's confidence and support.

Mr. President, for those of us who have served in the Senate for the past 5 years, the irony of the amendments before us today is inescapable. Had the Bush administration fulfilled its promises over those years and lived up to its rhetoric about bolstering our Nation's border security, there would be no need for the emergency supplemental spending amendments proposed by the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee and the Democratic leader.

The administration's failure on this front has not gone unnoticed. In December of 2005, the 9/11 Commission's Report Card gave the Bush administration a `D' grade for its efforts on border security, and specifically, for its failures in fostering international collaboration to improve border security. This is particularly disappointing in light of the grandiose statements in February 2001 in which the President heralded a new era of cooperation with President Vicente Fox on immigration and border issues.

For all its talk and swagger about security, the Bush-Cheney administration has not lived up to its public promises. Just last month we heard about nuclear material being successfully smuggled across our borders in a sting operation. Not long after that bombshell, a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services employee, Michael Maxwell, testified before a House subcommittee about an astonishing culture of corruption, and misdirected priorities in the agency within the Department of Homeland Security charged with processing immigration applications. For an administration that has regularly touted its commitment to national security, it is incomprehensible that the type of behavior Mr. Maxwell testified about was occurring in one of our most critical border security agencies.

You do not have to take my word for it or read the New York Times to see criticism of this administration's competence when it comes to border security. Take just one day's worth of reports from the Washington Times, one of the most conservative papers in the country. On Tuesday, that paper ran a front page story in which it reported that U.S. law enforcement officials say that ``[h]undreds of Mexican nationals who wear government-issued uniforms, carry official identification cards and are authorized to use weapons are helping smugglers move tons of drugs into the United States.'' This follows numerous reports of uniformed incursions into the United States.

On page 3 we read that the Homeland Security Department's inspector general has completed a 22-month investigation ``into Syrian nationals suspected of practicing to hijack a plane during a Detroit-to-Los Angeles flight.'' The inspector general's public summary says that the Department needs to better coordinate information on suspicious passengers, and on the conflicting jurisdictions of the FBI and Federal Air Marshal Service that can

compromise investigations of in-flight incidents. Because the 40-page inspector general report is classified, its detailed contents have not been made public, but it involves an incident from June 2004. According to the paper, the suspects were traveling under expired visas on one- way tickets bought with cash, but that immigration officials had failed to report to the airport to detain them.

Then on page 13, Tuesday's Washington Times reports about the case of a high-ranking Iranian official travels in and out of the United States on a U.S. green card, even though he carries an Iranian passport and is reported to be ``an economics and technology aide to Iran's top nuclear negotiator,'' and is reported to have ``joined the Iranian government last year'' and to be a ``high-ranking Iranian official.''

The three incidents I have just described are all possible border security scandals reported in just one newspaper on just 1 day.

Just as gas prices for American consumers have doubled during the Bush-Cheney administration so, too, have the number of undocumented immigrants within the United States doubled. I do not think that I need to remind the American people that the same Government Department that so mishandled Katrina and its aftermath is in charge of border security. Nor will any of us forget that after 9/11 the immigration authorities were still sending cordial correspondence to dead suicide hijackers.

Here in Congress, we have met the President's calls for increased border enforcement with authorizations across the board. Indeed, we have often acted, as we are now, to provide additional authorities and resources that the administration did not request in order to try to force progress on border security. The administration, however, has not lived up to its end of the bargain. Despite the funding mandates of the intelligence reform bill that provided for 2,000 new Border Patrol agents annually, the President's budget request for 2006 would have provided enough funding to add only 210 Border Patrol agents. That is 10 percent of what Congress mandated, and not a single new agent would have been assigned to help protect our northern border.

What the President has said and what the administration has done couldn't be more different. He has talked about border security, but his priorities in the budget proposals he has sent to Congress shows that his administration values tax cuts for the rich over robust border security.

It is incomprehensible that almost 5 years after the horrific attacks of September 11, only 6 percent of shipping containers entering U.S. ports are screened. Despite the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and despite Coast Guard recommendations that $5.4 billion is needed for port security over a 10-year period, the Republican Congress has appropriated only $800 million in grants during the last 5 years. I commend Senator Byrd for the port security additions he has made over time and to this bill. Following its failed effort to approve the Dubai Ports deal, the administration has recently made a big show of arrests of undocumented workers at one company. Ironically, those recent raids emphasize how little this administration has done over the last 5 years in terms of interior enforcement and enforcement of prohibitions against employers' illegal hirings. Where is the President's leadership on these critical issues?

I was pleased to see an increase in the President's proposed budget to allow for the hiring of 1,500 or more Border Patrol agents in 2007. The Judiciary Committee reported a bipartisan bill that calls for even more agents and investigators than that. But even the 1,500 new agents proved to be another hollow promise from the Bush administration. On closer scrutiny, it is clear that the funds to pay for these agents do not exist. The administration's budget also fails to specify whether any of these new positions are allocated to the northern border.

The President's budget priorities for fiscal year 2007 raise other serious concerns, including a proposal to eliminate grants dedicated to port security. This short-sighted proposal inexplicably shortchanges what we know is already a critically vulnerable aspect of our border security. It is difficult to reconcile what this President says about border security and what his administration does or does not do.

The lack of effectiveness of this administration is represented for many Americans by the Department of Homeland Security's failures to prepare for and respond to Hurricane Katrina. It was a disgrace and a human tragedy. It has been 6 months since the hurricane hit. We know that 1,604 lives were lost, but approximately 1,840 individuals are still listed as ``missing'' or ``whereabouts unknown.'' These numbers are astonishing. Is it possible that more lives were taken by Hurricane Katrina--a storm that we knew was coming for several days before it hit--than on September 11, 2001, when we were attacked without warning? What is being done to locate these persons and discover if they are living or if their lives were taken in the storm? It is no surprise that Congress is required to force action on border security when we consider how the Bush administration has performed.

I support the additional funding for border security in these amendments, though I do so with the regret that the Bush administration's lack of leadership on this critical issue has brought us to this point. Many of the items are the types of expenditures that we are now categorizing as ``emergency spending'' because of more than 5 years of neglect and incompetence in making them part of our regular budget and spending priorities as they should have been.

I conclude by commending the Democratic leader for his amendment. He has recognized a serious concern with the way that the alternative amendment was drafted. Both amendments contain the same funding. Both provide for long overdue law enforcement communications upgrades. Senator Gregg and I have worked on these matters since the tragic Drega incidents that affected our States demonstrated this critical need. Both amendments contain funding for border patrol vehicles and surveillance technology. Years ago it was a Vermont agent who helped develop remote sensors for border patrol purposes. Both contain almost $800 million for helicopter replacement and other air patrol and surveillance needs. Both contain $600 million for the Coast Guard vessels, aircraft, and equipment that is needed. Some of the other inclusions are less essential but I will not quibble with the subcommittee chairman or the Democratic leader who both include the same items and dollar amounts.

The difference between the amendments is a significant one, however, as the Democratic leader has explained. He supports, we all support, increased border security. But his amendment ensures that these additions are not paid for by taking funds from the emergency funding recommended for the needs of troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan or from the needs of those victimized by Hurricane Katrina in the gulf region. We should not be cutting pay and benefits for our National Guard, Active Duty and Reserve troops. We should not be cutting Iraqi security force training funding. We should not be cutting the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund that is intended to protect our troops from the scourge of deadly IEDs that threaten them in Iraq. We should not be cutting but should be improving health programs for out veterans and, sadly, the death benefits for their families. I agree with Senator Reid and will support his amendment to better secure our borders and years of neglect but will do so without shortchanging the needs of the troops whom the President has committed to fighting in Iraq, and that we all authorized be sent to Afghanistan.

Mr President, I am pleased today to join my friend and co- chair of the Senate National Guard Caucus, the Senator from Missouri, Senator Bond, in introducing far-reaching legislation that will strengthen our Nation's defense and the National Guard, which is an inextricable part of the bedrock of our security. The National Defense Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act of 2006 would empower the National Guard.

It offers the Guard new authorities and a greater and more fitting voice in policy and budgetary discussions that is more line with the reliance that we place on this force of proud men and women.

The Nation asks the Guard to provide a large part of the ground forces in Iraq, but then we give the force no say in strategic planning and budget discussions. In fact, there have been recent efforts within the armed services to cut the force precipitously.

Anyone who has watched recent events knows that the role of the Guard is dramatically changed as we come into this century.

We ask the Guard to carry out missions at home in response to disasters and possible domestic attacks, but then give the force no real ability to develop new equipment for this unique mission. And, in a crunch, our senior defense leaders--including the President--turn to the Chief of the National Guard for guidance in addressing and responding to emergencies within the domestic United States, yet those same senior Guard leaders receive only mediated and filtered advice at other points. This gap between the Guard's real world missions and its institutional position is simply unacceptable. It is not efficient, and it is not smart. It violates basic notions of logic, and it hinders our ability to get the full potential out of the National Guard.

Our legislation will take them from the 19th and 20th century structure into the 21st century's reality.

Our legislation directly addresses this troubling missions-to- authorities gap in three very specific ways. First, the National Defense Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act of 2006 would elevate the Chief of the National Guard to the rank of General with four-stars, also installing this senior officer on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Joint Chiefs is the highest military advisory body to the President and the Secretary of Defense. Without a Guard representative at the four-star level, the Secretary and the President receive only filtered advice from the Chiefs of Staff of the Army and the Air Force about National Guard matters.

The Army and the Air Force chiefs can provide keen insights about the Guard's role as a prime military reserve to the active components. However, they are not responsible for, and therefore are not experts on, disaster relief and homeland security functions that the Guard carries out at the State level, often under the command-and-control of the Nation's governors. Placing a National Guard General on the Joint Chiefs offers the fullest and most sensible guidance to our leaders on all aspects of the Guard, and this arrangement would give the Nation's governors a straight line to the Joint Chiefs and the President on military matters.

Creating a Guard senior advisor to the Secretary of Defense and the President streamlines and formalizes an arrangement that already arises in real emergencies. During the darkest early days of Katrina, for example, the current National Guard Bureau Chief General Steven Blum was by the side of the Secretary of Defense and the President. A permanent Guard presence on the Joint Chiefs ensures that this advisory relationship is in no way last-minute and ad-hoc.

The second way that this legislation puts the National Guard's authorities more in line with its real-world missions is by giving the force more budgetary authority. The Act gives the National Guard the ability to research, develop and procure equipment that is peculiar to its unique mission in the realm of homeland security.

This authority would be similar to the authority of the Special Operations Command, given under the Nunn-Cohen legislation of the mid- 1980s, to develop unique equipment for the special forces.

Last year, Congress appropriated almost $1 billion for the National Guard to procure equipment that has application for homeland security. This legislation establishes more formal structure for the Guard to refine such equipment requirements and work in close coordination with the states to ensure an adequate force structure--fully adequate in domestic emergencies--is in place.

The final way that this legislation brings realistic authorities to the Guard is by ensuring that the Deputy Commander of Northern Command is a three-star general from the National Guard. This Command is charged with planning for the active military's response to federal emergencies, as well as coordinating the response with other federal agencies and civilian authorities. Any military response in the domestic United States will surely include the National Guard, in many cases with the State governor overseeing the effort.

Currently, there are few if any senior Guard officers at the highest reaches of

the Command, and the legislation would ensure expertise on the force exists there.

There has been a lot of discussion already about this legislation after Senator Bond and I last month expressed our intention to pursue it. To clear up any confusion, let me say what this legislation does not do. This legislation does not affect the National Guard's role as one of the primary military reserves to the Air Force and the Army, which we believe is beneficial for the country.

It also does not inflate the size of National Guard headquarters here in Washington. We put a firm cap on the size of the Guard Bureau in this legislation. The legislation further does not create any new general office positions beyond the four-star Joint Chiefs position. It only ensures that the adequate seats of representation is in place in key positions; in fact, the legislation actually removes a less influential Major General officer slot on the Joint Staff.

What this bill does do--and with great intensity--is to give the National Guard the institutional muscle commensurate with the Guard's missions. With this bill, we can ask the Guard to do all that it does, but then say that, yes, it can have a seat at the table during key discussions involving the Guard's missions and readiness. With this bill, we can tap into the Guard for situations like the war in Iraq and the response to Hurricane Katrina and tell these proud men and women that we take are committed to taking real steps to keep the size of this force steady and improve its stock of available equipment.

With this bill, we can ensure that our senior leaders--the Secretary of Defense and the President--are making decisions about the National Guard based on the best available information.

With this bill, we strengthen the National Guard, the military chain- of-command, and the Guard's ability to effectively serve each of the States and the entire Nation.

Mr President, I am pleased today to join my friend and co- chair of the Senate National Guard Caucus, the Senator from Missouri, Senator Bond, in introducing far-reaching legislation that will strengthen our Nation's defense and the National Guard, which is an inextricable part of the bedrock of our security. The National Defense Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act of 2006 would empower the National Guard.

It offers the Guard new authorities and a greater and more fitting voice in policy and budgetary discussions that is more line with the reliance that we place on this force of proud men and women.

The Nation asks the Guard to provide a large part of the ground forces in Iraq, but then we give the force no say in strategic planning and budget discussions. In fact, there have been recent efforts within the armed services to cut the force precipitously.

Anyone who has watched recent events knows that the role of the Guard is dramatically changed as we come into this century.

We ask the Guard to carry out missions at home in response to disasters and possible domestic attacks, but then give the force no real ability to develop new equipment for this unique mission. And, in a crunch, our senior defense leaders--including the President--turn to the Chief of the National Guard for guidance in addressing and responding to emergencies within the domestic United States, yet those same senior Guard leaders receive only mediated and filtered advice at other points. This gap between the Guard's real world missions and its institutional position is simply unacceptable. It is not efficient, and it is not smart. It violates basic notions of logic, and it hinders our ability to get the full potential out of the National Guard.

Our legislation will take them from the 19th and 20th century structure into the 21st century's reality.

Our legislation directly addresses this troubling missions-to- authorities gap in three very specific ways. First, the National Defense Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act of 2006 would elevate the Chief of the National Guard to the rank of General with four-stars, also installing this senior officer on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Joint Chiefs is the highest military advisory body to the President and the Secretary of Defense. Without a Guard representative at the four-star level, the Secretary and the President receive only filtered advice from the Chiefs of Staff of the Army and the Air Force about National Guard matters.

The Army and the Air Force chiefs can provide keen insights about the Guard's role as a prime military reserve to the active components. However, they are not responsible for, and therefore are not experts on, disaster relief and homeland security functions that the Guard carries out at the State level, often under the command-and-control of the Nation's governors. Placing a National Guard General on the Joint Chiefs offers the fullest and most sensible guidance to our leaders on all aspects of the Guard, and this arrangement would give the Nation's governors a straight line to the Joint Chiefs and the President on military matters.

Creating a Guard senior advisor to the Secretary of Defense and the President streamlines and formalizes an arrangement that already arises in real emergencies. During the darkest early days of Katrina, for example, the current National Guard Bureau Chief General Steven Blum was by the side of the Secretary of Defense and the President. A permanent Guard presence on the Joint Chiefs ensures that this advisory relationship is in no way last-minute and ad-hoc.

The second way that this legislation puts the National Guard's authorities more in line with its real-world missions is by giving the force more budgetary authority. The Act gives the National Guard the ability to research, develop and procure equipment that is peculiar to its unique mission in the realm of homeland security.

This authority would be similar to the authority of the Special Operations Command, given under the Nunn-Cohen legislation of the mid- 1980s, to develop unique equipment for the special forces.

Last year, Congress appropriated almost $1 billion for the National Guard to procure equipment that has application for homeland security. This legislation establishes more formal structure for the Guard to refine such equipment requirements and work in close coordination with the states to ensure an adequate force structure--fully adequate in domestic emergencies--is in place.

The final way that this legislation brings realistic authorities to the Guard is by ensuring that the Deputy Commander of Northern Command is a three-star general from the National Guard. This Command is charged with planning for the active military's response to federal emergencies, as well as coordinating the response with other federal agencies and civilian authorities. Any military response in the domestic United States will surely include the National Guard, in many cases with the State governor overseeing the effort.

Currently, there are few if any senior Guard officers at the highest reaches of

the Command, and the legislation would ensure expertise on the force exists there.

There has been a lot of discussion already about this legislation after Senator Bond and I last month expressed our intention to pursue it. To clear up any confusion, let me say what this legislation does not do. This legislation does not affect the National Guard's role as one of the primary military reserves to the Air Force and the Army, which we believe is beneficial for the country.

It also does not inflate the size of National Guard headquarters here in Washington. We put a firm cap on the size of the Guard Bureau in this legislation. The legislation further does not create any new general office positions beyond the four-star Joint Chiefs position. It only ensures that the adequate seats of representation is in place in key positions; in fact, the legislation actually removes a less influential Major General officer slot on the Joint Staff.

What this bill does do--and with great intensity--is to give the National Guard the institutional muscle commensurate with the Guard's missions. With this bill, we can ask the Guard to do all that it does, but then say that, yes, it can have a seat at the table during key discussions involving the Guard's missions and readiness. With this bill, we can tap into the Guard for situations like the war in Iraq and the response to Hurricane Katrina and tell these proud men and women that we take are committed to taking real steps to keep the size of this force steady and improve its stock of available equipment.

With this bill, we can ensure that our senior leaders--the Secretary of Defense and the President--are making decisions about the National Guard based on the best available information.

With this bill, we strengthen the National Guard, the military chain- of-command, and the Guard's ability to effectively serve each of the States and the entire Nation.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Democratic leader. I thank him for his statement. I also wish to commend him for the work he has done, both he and the distinguished deputy leader, in trying to bring us to this point. I know how hard the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the committee, has worked to pass a bill. I have been proud to work with him.

I was encouraged this week that the majority leader and other Senate Republicans moved in our direction--a good direction--by recognizing that we need a solution to the problems posed by having millions of undocumented

immigrants inside our borders. Many of us believe that immigration reform, to have any chance to succeed, needs to be comprehensive, with strong enforcement of border security matched with fair and effective steps to bring millions of hard-working people out of the shadows and provide them a path to citizenship and a full measure of America's promise.

The bill now being proposed by the majority leader is not as comprehensive or as good as that produced by the Judiciary Committee in that it leaves many among us out of the equation and may have the perverse effect of driving millions further underground. I thought the bipartisan Judiciary Committee bill represented a better balance of strong enforcement of our borders with fair reforms that honored human dignity and American values. I will continue to work for a bill and a law that is fair to all. We all agree that it will be tough on security, but it also has to acknowledge our American values and, above all, human dignity.

The House-passed bill and the original Frist bill were overly punitive. But wisely, in our deliberations in the Judiciary Committee and in the alternative now being proposed, we have rejected the controversial provisions that would have exposed those who provide humanitarian relief, medical care, shelter, counseling, and other basic services to the undocumented to possible prosecution under felony alien smuggling provisions. That was a cruel, cruel amendment, and I am glad it is gone. You can't tell those who feed the hungry, clothe the naked, those who shelter people, that they are going to become felons for doing so.

We rejected the proposal to criminalize mere presence in an undocumented status in the United States, which would trap people in a permanent underclass. Those provisions understandably sparked nationwide protests and are being viewed as anti-Hispanic and anti- immigrant. They are inconsistent with American values. As one who is only one generation from immigrant grandparents, I am glad we removed those.

I fear that the arbitrary categorization of people in the current proposal is not fair to all. I would not want us to set bureaucratic hurdles and arbitrary timeframes that will serve negatively to continue an underclass in American and drive people underground. The purpose of the path to citizenship is to bring people into the sunshine of American life and into law-abiding status so that they abide by all our laws. That will allow our enforcement resources to be focused on real security concerns. Sadly, those across the aisle have refused to proceed on the bipartisan Committee bill so this alternative proposal is an effort to garner additional support from the Majority Leader and others but it comes at some expense. He opposed the Specter-Leahy-Hagel amendment but now supports the Frist amendment, which he graciously called the Hagel-Martinez amendment. The Majority Leader called it a ``negotiated compromise.''

I was not a party to those negotiations. Given the successful Republican opposition and obstruction of the bipartisan Committee bill, I have now joined in efforts to improve the Frist amendment and the Hagel-Martinez amendment. I am working with Senator Obama and Senator Durbin to improve that measure.

I do not in any way disparage the efforts of my friends from Nebraska and Florida. I appreciate their efforts. I know that they had indicated their support for the bipartisan Committee bill. In fact, a majority of Senators supported the bipartisan Committee bill. Rather, they are trying to point a way toward the best possible legislation that can achieve not just a majority but a supermajority of support within the current Senate.

I will support the majority leader's motion for cloture on the motion to commit. That will bring the Frist amendment before the Senate, and I will continue to work for bipartisan, comprehensive, smart, tough, and fair immigration reform.

I was surprised to hear the Majority Leader say last night that he was considering opposing his own motion. We should have invoked cloture yesterday on the bipartisan Committee bill. I hope that we do so today on the Frist motion on the Frist amendment.

I appreciate that for those undocumented immigrants who can prove they have been in the U.S. for more than five years, the path to citizenship that we voted out of Committee would still govern. To earn status and eventual citizenship, the immigrant must undergo background checks, work, pay taxes, pay fines, and learn English. That is not an amnesty program. The Republican Leader has now reversed his position and supports those provisions. That is progress. In addition, the bill we will be considering continues to contain the Ag Jobs bill and the DREAM Act, and the amendments the Senate voted to add to the bipartisan Committee bill, including the Bingaman enforcement amendment and the Alexander citizenship amendment.

Those undocumented immigrants who have been here for two to five years would, under the provisions of the new bill, have to leave the U.S. and seek approval to return and to work under a temporary status for four years. They could eventually seek legal permanent status, probably after a total of 8 to 10 years, and only after those who have ``seniority'' to them by being in the group that has been in the U.S. for more than five years. Thus, this new grouping of people is treated under a combination of rules drawn from a bill introduced by the senior Senator from Nebraska and the Kyl-Cornyn bill. Perhaps those who negotiated this scheme will garner the support of Senator Kyl and Senator Cornyn and others with whom they have been working.

At least, this new categorization preserves a potential pathway to regularized status. The test will be whether it is made so onerous by its implementation that those in this designated category will come forward at all. We will all need to work to make that a reality so that they know that we value them, their families and their hard work.

The most recent arrivals, those immigrants after January 1, 2004, are offered no special treatment. I was concerned about similar aspects of the Committee bill. There are no incentives to come forward. They are merely told to leave the U.S. and apply for one of the limited visas that will be authorized. They could try to come back as legal temporary workers.

If we do not, I worry that the Majority Leader's announcement of a ``breakthrough'' will have the unintended effect of having created a false impression and false hopes. I commend him for changing his position over the course of the last week. I am delighted that he and others who had been opposing comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship are joining us in the effort. But an announcement is not the enactment of a new law. I urge people, especially the undocumented, to remember that. We are still a long way from enacting fair, comprehensive and humane immigration reform. None has yet passed the Senate. And certainly fair immigration reform has not passed the House. The cruelest joke of all would be to raise expectations and false hopes by premature talk of a solution when none has yet been achieved, especially if it remains elusive and that promise is not fulfilled.

So while I am glad that some Republicans have dropped their opposition to establishing a path to citizenship for many, I worry that many others may be left behind. I also urge everyone concerned about the lives of those who are undocumented to remain cautious and focused on enacting a law, and on what it will provide in its final form. It would be wrong to just pass a bill that ends up serving as a false promise to those who yearn to be part of the promise of a better life that is America.

Our work on immigration reform is a defining moment in our history. We are writing laws that will determine people's lives and what it is that America stands for. I continue to urge the Senate to rise to the occasion and act as the conscience of the Nation. I will continue to work on immigration reform so that the laws we enact will be in keeping with the best the Senate can offer the Nation and the best that America can offer to immigrants. I hope that our work will be something that would make my immigrant grandparents proud, and a product that will make our children and grandchildren proud.

There will be more rallies around the country next week by thousands of people in cities across the United

States. They know what we Senators now know--our immigration system is broken and we need to fix it. We need to fix it with effective, comprehensive reforms. The question is still open whether the Senate is committed to making real immigration reform.

I have said from the outset that Democratic Senators could not pass a good immigration bill on our own. With fewer than 50 Democratic Senators, we will need the support of Republican Senators if the Senate is to make progress on this important matter.

The majority leader had often spoken of allowing two weeks for Senate debate of this important matter. We now approach the end of that work period. I had hoped we would be farther along. When the Senate did not complete work on the lobbying reform bill on schedule--because Republicans refused to vote on the port security amendment--it cut into time for this immigration debate. When the majority leader decided to begin the debate with a day of discussion of the Frist bill, we lost more time. We were left then with one week, not two. We have lost time that could have been spent debating and adopting amendments when some Republicans withheld consent from utilizing our usual procedures over the last days. We have endured the false and partisan charges of obstruction came from the other side. We have experienced seemingly endless quorum calls without debate or action.

I thank the Democratic leader for his efforts. He has been working for a comprehensive, realistic and fair immigration bill. We still are. I regret that over the last several days some tried to make this into a partisan fight. I hope that we are now able to draw back together in a bipartisan effort to pass a good bill that becomes a good law.

If the Senator will yield a moment on that, I have commended the Senator before for his indefatigable leadership. He worked extraordinarily hard. I commit to the senior Senator from Pennsylvania that on the Democratic side we will continue to work with him on any amount of time he needs in committee. Our committee demonstrated that we can produce a bipartisan bill. We will continue to work with him in any way necessary to finish this. I agree with him that it is important. On this of the aisle, we will continue that work.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to stand with my colleagues, Senator Alexander, Senator Hatch, and Senator Nelson of Florida, to express the sense of this Congress that institutions of higher education should act diligently to help eliminate the harms from the illicit copyright infringement that plagues many campus computer systems.

Online piracy, especially illegal file-sharing of copyrighted works such as music, movies and software, is a growing problem. While I always encourage technological innovation, I am also acutely aware of the need to respect the intellectual property rights and talent of those who create the works that are made available online. Some peer- to-peer software applications allow individuals, without authorization, to copy and distribute--for free--unlimited numbers of these valuable works. The speed and convenience of our universities' networks, which were built for academic pursuits, have unfortunately also proved to be a lure for students seeking to engage in this illegal and detrimental behavior.

When music and movie industry representatives speak with me about this problem, they describe a disturbing level of online piracy. In addition to exposing students to legal liability, illegal file-sharing on school networks may compromise the integrity of those systems by using up expensive bandwidth, introducing spyware, and hosting destructive viruses.

I am pleased that colleges and universities in my home state have been working for nearly two years to combat these problems. In July 2004, Middlebury College, located in Middlebury VT, announced a deal with Napster to provide legitimate file sharing services that offer online music to students. It is my hope that more institutions will follow in step, and work to provide students with the tools needed to lawfully access the wealth of information available on the web.

As technology continues to advance, the issues that surround legitimately accessing online content will become increasingly important. I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the isle for working with me to convey this important message.

Mr. President, I began this debate by praising the bipartisanship of the Judiciary Committee for reporting a comprehensive and realistic immigration bill to the Senate. I have said from the outset that Democratic Senators could not pass a good immigration bill on our own. With fewer than 50 Democratic Senators, we will need the support of Republican Senators if the Senate is to make progress on this important matter today.

With all the dramatic stagecraft of the last few days and the protestations from the other side of the aisle it may seem surprising, but the truth is that by invoking cloture on this bill, we move to consideration of germane amendments. If the Kyl amendment is germane and pending, it would be in line for a vote. So much for all the bluster and false claims of Democratic obstruction we have heard. If Republicans want to move forward on this debate, and get one step closer to a vote on tough but fair immigration reform, they should support cloture. For the past few days, I have offered, and our leadership has offered, to take up a number of bipartisan amendments for debate and votes that would have easily won the support of the Senate. It

was Senator Kyl who objected to that progress.

Late last night, the Republican leader came to the floor to file a motion that would require the Senate to send the immigration bill back to the committee. He immediately acted to ``fill the tree,'' a parliamentary procedure that means that none of us could offer amendments, and he filed an immediate cloture motion.

So before any of us even saw the amendment, the Republican leader made sure to prevent any Senator in this body from offering an amendment of his or her own. It is somewhat ironic, after all of the posturing by Republicans over the past 2 days about the right of Senators to offer amendments and be heard, that the Republican Party has returned full force to its standard practice of shutting out those who might disagree. That is too bad, especially on a matter this important. We began with a high level of demonstrated bipartisanship. Senator Specter and I worked together to get a bill out that had a two- thirds majority of the Judiciary Committee, Republicans and Democrats, voting for it.

The majority leader had set March 27 as the deadline for Judiciary Committee action, and we met his deadline. I always understood that the majority leader had committed to turn to the committee bill if we were able to meet his deadline. That is what I heard the Judiciary Committee chairman reiterate as we concluded our markup and heard him say, again, as the Senate debate began. The Democratic leader noted that we had agreed to proceed based on the assurances he had received that ``the foundation of the Senate's upcoming debate on immigration policy will be the bipartisan Committee bill.''

The majority leader had often spoken of allowing two full weeks for Senate debate of this important matter. Regrettably, what the majority leader said and what happened are not the same. The Senate did not complete work on the lobbying reform bill on schedule and that cut into time for this debate. When the majority leader decided to begin the debate with a day of discussion of the Frist bill, we lost more time. We were left then with 1 week, not 2. We have lost time that could have been spent debating and adopting amendments when some Republicans withheld consent from utilizing our usual procedures over the last days. When the false and partisan charges of obstruction came from the other side, the Democratic leader filed a petition for cloture that I hope will bring successful action on a comprehensive, realistic and fair immigration bill.

So I regret that now, when we have a bill with strong bipartisan support, some would try to make this into a partisan fight. I fear that they have succeeded in making a partisan fight over a bill that began as a bipartisan bill. I urge all Senators, Republicans, Democrats and the Senate's Independent, to vote for cloture on the bipartisan committee bill and bring this debate to a successful conclusion so that we can have a bill passed by the Senate by the end of this week.

This is an historic vote. It asks us whether the Senate is committed to forging real immigration reform. I urge all Senators to vote for reform by supporting this cloture motion on what is a bipartisan bill that balances tough enforcement with human dignity.

Now, the Republican manager of the bill was right to take on the smear campaign against the committee bill from opponents who falsely labeled it amnesty. The committee bill is not an amnesty bill. President Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986. This is not. This is a tough bill with a realistic way to strengthen our security and border enforcement, while bringing people out of the shadows to earn citizenship--not immediate citizenship; it still takes 11 years. They have to pay fines, work, pay taxes, they have to learn English, and then they have to swear allegiance to the United States. That is a long way from amnesty.

As the New York Times noted in an editorial, responding to those who falsely smeared this as an amnesty bill, painting the word ``deer'' on a cow and taking it into the woods does not make the cow into a deer. This is something every deer hunter in Vermont knows.

It is most ironic to hear those in the Republican Congress talk about amnesty and lack of responsibility. Their record over the last 6 years is a failure to require responsibility and accountability, or to serve as a check and balance. They are experts in amnesty, so they should know this bill is not amnesty.

I was glad to hear the Republican leader begin to change his tune over this week and acknowledge that providing hard-working neighbors with a path to citizenship is not amnesty. I have not had an opportunity to see, let alone review, the Republican instructions in the motion filed late last night. I am advised that they now have a proposal to establish a path for citizenship for some of the undocumented. I guess other Republicans will falsely label that effort as ``amnesty for some.''

Tragically, however, the opponents of tough and smart comprehensive immigration reform will not stop with smearing the bill. Some who have opposed it have used ethnic slurs with respect to outstanding Members of the Senate. I spoke about this yesterday, when I praised Senator Salazar. His family's is a distinguished record that should not need my defense. I deplore the all-too-typical tactics of McCarthyism and division to which our opponents have resorted, again. This is an issue that goes to the heart and soul and conscience of the Senate. When people who disagree with Members of this body resort to ethnic or religious slurs, we all ought to stand up and condemn it. I did so on the floor of the Senate yesterday.

I recall the wisdom of Senator Ralph Flanders, the first one to have the courage to stand up to Joseph McCarthy. We are now facing in this country a religious and ethnic McCarthyism. I wish one Republican would stand up--just one--and say they agree that we should not have such religious and ethnic slurs on Members of the Senate just because of disagreement with a position they have taken on the bill. Regrettably, no one did. It is beneath the dignity and honor of this great body and beneath the dignity and honor of any Member of the body. I, again, thank Senator Salazar, Senator Menendez, Senator Obama, and Senator Martinez for their support of the committee bill and their participation in this debate.

The Specter-Leahy-Hagel substitute amendment that mirrors the Judiciary Committee bill confronts the challenging problem of how to fix our broken immigration system head on. It is strong on enforcement--stronger than the majority leader's bill. In some ways it is stronger than the bill passed by the House. It includes provisions added by Senator Feinstein to make tunneling under our borders a federal crime and increases the number of enforcement agents. It is tough on employer enforcement and tough on traffickers. But it is also comprehensive and balanced. I have called it enforcement ``plus'' because it confronts the problem of the millions of undocumented who live in the shadows. It values work and respects human dignity. It includes guest worker provisions supported by business and labor and a fair path to earned citizenship over 11 years through fines, the payment of taxes, hard work and learning English that has the support of religious and leading Hispanic organizations. It includes the AgJOBS bill and the DREAM Act, the Frist amendment, the Bingaman enforcement amendment, and the Alexander citizenship amendment.

Wisely, we have rejected the controversial provisions that would have exposed those who provide humanitarian relief, medical care, shelter, counseling and other basic services to the undocumented to possible prosecution under felony alien smuggling provisions of the criminal law. And we have rejected the proposal to criminalize mere presence in an undocumented status in the United States, which would trap people in a permanent underclass. Those provisions of the bill supported by congressional Republicans have understandably sparked nationwide protests because they are viewed as anti-Hispanic and anti-immigrant and are inconsistent with American values.

Our work on immigration reform has been called a defining moment in our history. The Senate, in its best moments, has been able to rise to the occasion and act as the conscience to the

Nation, in the best true interests of our Nation.

I hope that the Senate's work on immigration reform will be in keeping with the best the Senate can offer the Nation. I hope that our work will be something that would make not only my immigrant grandparents proud--and I stand only one generation from my immigrant grandparents--but a product that will make our children and grandchildren proud as they look back on this debate. Now is the time and this is the moment for the Senate to come together to do its part and reject the calls to partisanship.

Now is the time to move forward with the bipartisan committee bill as our framework so that we can bring millions of people out of the shadows and end the permanent underclass status of so many who have contributed so much. By voting for cloture, we will take a giant step toward better protecting our security and borders and allowing the American dream to become a reality for our hard-working neighbors. History will judge. The time is now.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

Madam President, I began this debate by praising the bipartisanship of the Judiciary Committee for reporting a comprehensive and realistic immigration bill to the Senate. I have said from the outset that Democratic Senators could not pass a good immigration bill on our own. With fewer than 50 Democratic Senators, we will need the support of Republican Senators if the Senate is to make progress on this important matter today.

With all the dramatic stagecraft of the last few days, and the protestations from the other side of the aisle, it may seem surprising, but the truth is that by invoking cloture on this bill we move to consideration of germane amendments. If the Kyl amendment is germane and pending, it would be in line for a vote. So much for all the bluster and false claims of Democratic obstruction we have heard. If Republicans want to move forward on this debate and get one step closer to a vote on tough but fair immigration reform, they should support cloture. For the past few days, I have offered and our leadership has offered to take up a number of bipartisan amendments for debate and votes that would have easily won the support of the Senate. It was Senator Kyl who objected to that progress.

Late last night, the Republican leader came to the floor to file a motion that would require the Senate to send the immigration bill back to the committee. He immediately acted to ``fill the tree'' with a series of amendments and filed an immediate cloture motion. So before any of us even saw the amendment, the Republican leader made sure to stop every other Senator from offering any amendment. How ironic, after all the posturing by Republicans over the last 2 days about the rights of Senators to offer amendments and be heard, the majority party has returned full force to its standard practices. That is too bad, especially on a matter this important and on which we began with such a high level of demonstrated bipartisanship.

The majority leader had set March 27 as the deadline for Judiciary Committee action, and we met his deadline. I always understood that the majority leader had committed to turn to the committee bill if we were able to meet his deadline. That is what I heard the Judiciary Chairman reiterate as we concluded our markup and heard him say, again, as the Senate debate began. The Democratic leader noted that we had agreed to proceed based on the assurances he had received that ``the foundation of the Senate's upcoming debate on immigration policy will be the bipartisan committee bill.''

The majority leader had often spoken of allowing 2 full weeks for Senate debate of this important matter. Regrettably, what the majority leader said and what happened are not the same. The Senate did not complete work on the lobbying reform bill on schedule and cut into time for this debate. When the majority leader decided to begin the debate with a day of discussion of the Frist bill, we lost more time. We were left then with 1 week, not 2. We have lost time that could have been spent debating and adopting amendments when some Republicans withheld consent from utilizing our usual procedures over the last days. When the false and partisan charges of obstruction came from the other side, the Democratic leader filed a petition for cloture that I hope will bring successful action on a comprehensive, realistic, and fair immigration bill.

I regret that over the last 3 days some tried to make this into a partisan fight. I fear they have succeeded. I urge all Senators, Republicans and Democrats, and the Senate's Independent, to vote for cloture on the bipartisan committee bill, to bring this debate to a head and a successful conclusion, in the time and on the terms set by the majority leader. If we are to pass a bipartisan bill by the end of this week, we will need to join together to support cloture on the bipartisan committee bill, proceed to work our way through the remaining amendments and pass the bill.

This is a historic vote on whether the Senate is committed to making real immigration reform. I urge all Senators to vote for reform by supporting this cloture motion on the bipartisan bill that balances tough enforcement with human dignity.

The Republican manager of the bill was right to take on the smear campaign against the committee bill from opponents who falsely labeled it amnesty. The committee bill on which cloture is being sought is not an amnesty bill but a tough bill with a realistic way to strengthen our security and border enforcement while bringing people out of the shadows to have them earn citizenship over the course of 11 years through fines and work and paying taxes and learning English and swearing allegiance to the United States. As The New York Times noted in a recent editorial, painting the word ``deer'' on a cow and taking it into the woods does not make the cow into a deer.

It is most ironic to hear those in the majority of the Republican Congress talk about amnesty and lack of accountability. Their record over the last 6 years is a failure to require responsibility and accountability or to serve as a check or balance. They are experts in amnesty and should know that this bill is not amnesty.

I was glad to hear the Republican leader begin to change his tune this weekend and to acknowledge that providing hardworking neighbors with a path to citizenship is not amnesty. I have not had an opportunity to see, let alone review, the Republican instructions in the motion filed late last

night. I am advised that they would establish a path to citizenship for a segment of the undocumented. I guess other Republicans will falsely label that effort as ``amnesty for some.''

Tragically, however, the opponents of tough and smart comprehensive immigration reform do not stop with smearing the bill. They have also used ethnic slurs with respect to outstanding Members of this Senate. I spoke yesterday to praise Senator Salazar. His family has a distinguished record that should not need my defense. I deplore the all-too-typical tactics of McCarthyism and division to which our opponents have resorted, again. I wish someone on the other side of the aisle had shown the wisdom of Ralph Flanders and joined with me in criticism of such tactics. Regrettably, no one did. I, again, thank Senator Salazar, Senator Menendez, Senator Obama, and Senator Martinez for their support of the committee bill and their participation in this debate.

The Specter-Leahy-Hagel substitute amendment that mirrors the Judiciary Committee bill confronts the challenging problem of how to fix our broken immigration system head on. It is strong on enforcement--stronger than the majority leader's bill. In some ways it is stronger than the bill passed by the House. It includes provisions added by Senator Feinstein to make tunneling under our borders a Federal crime and increases the number of enforcement agents. It is tough on employer enforcement and tough on traffickers. But it is also comprehensive and balanced. I have called it enforcement ``plus'' because it confronts the problem of the millions of undocumented who live in the shadows. It values work and respects human dignity. It includes guest worker provisions supported by business and labor and a fair path to earned citizenship over 11 years through fines, the payment of taxes, hard work, and learning English that has the support of religious and leading Hispanic organizations. It includes the Ag JOBS bill and the DREAM Act, the Frist amendment, the Bingaman enforcement amendment, and the Alexander citizenship amendment.

Wisely, we have rejected the controversial provisions that would have exposed those who provide humanitarian relief, medical care, shelter, counseling, and other basic services to the undocumented to possible prosecution under felony alien smuggling provisions of the criminal law. And we have rejected the proposal to criminalize mere presence in an undocumented status in the United States, which would trap people in a permanent underclass. Those provisions of the bills supported by congressional Republicans have understandably sparked nationwide protests being viewed as anti-Hispanic and anti-immigrant and are inconsistent with American values.

Our work on immigration reform has accurately been called a defining moment in our history. The Senate, in its best moments, has been able to rise to the occasion and act as the conscience of the Nation, in the best true interests of our Nation. I hope that the Senate's work on immigration reform will be in keeping with the best the Senate can offer the Nation. I hope that our work will be something that would make my immigrant grandparents proud, and a product that will make our children and grandchildren proud as they look back on this debate.

Now is the time and this is the moment for the Senate to come together to do its part and to reject the calls to partisanship. Now is the time to move forward with the committee bill as our framework so that we can bring millions of people out of the shadows and end the permanent underclass status of so many who have contributed so much. By voting for cloture we will take a giant step toward better protecting our security and borders and allowing the American dream to become a reality for our hard-working neighbors. History will judge, and the time is now.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. President, I will not speak for long. I do this because I wish to speak about the severe humanitarian crisis in Darfur, Sudan.

It has been almost 2 years since the Congress, in a bipartisan effort of both the House and Senate, declared the atrocities in Darfur, Sudan, to be genocide. That is a word not passed around easily in these halls.

Then, about a year and a half ago, the administration publicly reached the same conclusion. I know there was debate within the administration whether they would use that word. I commend President Bush for reaching the same conclusion.

What worries me, here is a case where the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the President of the United States, all came together to call the atrocities in Darfur, in our day and our age, genocide. But since those declarations, the United States and other nations have failed to devise an effective strategy to bring peace to the desperate people of that remote, war-ravaged region. The human cost of this failure has been unimaginable. It is staggering.

Earlier this month, President Bush celebrated International Women's Day. There is no cause for celebration for the women of Darfur, thousands of whom have been the victims of rape and other acts of sexual violence inflicted by Government security forces and the militias they support. They use rape as a method of terror.

There have been systematic massacres, rape, torture and the burning of hundreds of villages, homes--often with the families inside. Darfur has been pillaged and the lives of its people destroyed.

The Government of Sudan has repeatedly attempted to disguise its role in the violence so it has been impossible to ascertain an accurate death toll, but somewhere between 200,000 and 300,000 people have died of murder or starvation.

Many thousands more have ended up in squalid refugee camps after their homes have been reduced to ashes by the Government-sponsored jinjaweit militias.

At the same time this is happening, we see Sudan's President, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, squander $4.5 million, in this desperately poor country, to purchase a 118-foot, 172-ton Presidential yacht so he can entertain foreign dignitaries and create a perverse facade of Sudanese progress and sophistication.

This is progress and sophistication, or a reflection of the ego of a leader? Is it progress and sophistication, that children have been murdered and members of the family murdered in front of other members of the family?

Then, to make this even worse, the President of Sudan, in order to transport it by land from Port Sudan to Khartoum, required severing 132 electric lines, plunging neighborhood after neighborhood into temporary darkness.

It is difficult to conceive of the level of greed, arrogance, and twisted logic that would cause the leader of a desperately impoverished country to waste millions of dollars on a ridiculously ostentatious yacht to cruise the Nile River while thousands of the Sudanese children he is supposed to be protecting have fallen victim to the jinjaweit's brutality.

Tens of thousands more are at serious risk of death by starvation, malnutrition, disease, and mayhem. Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs, Jan Egeland, recently stated that Darfur has returned to ``the abyss'' of early 2004 when the region was ``the killing fields of this world.''

The scale of atrocities occurring in Darfur is appalling. For too long the international community has been doing too little, hoping against reality that somehow the situation would improve.

Instead, in recent weeks we have seen the violence spread across the border into Chad. The Government of Sudan is actively exporting the Darfur crisis to its neighbor by providing arms to the jinjaweit and allowing them to attack Chadian refugees and villagers, seizing their livestock and killing anyone who resists.

As a result, 200,000 of the residents of Chad have been forced from their homes. They have become displaced people in their own country.

Earlier this month, the Senate, and rightly so, unanimously passed S. Res. 383. It calls on our President to take immediate steps to help improve security in Darfur. The resolution proposed a no-fly zone over Darfur and the deployment of NATO troops to support the African Union forces currently on the ground.

The African Union has done its best, but with only 7,000 troops, inadequate resources, and a weak mandate to patrol this vast area, it has been unable to prevent the militias from continuing to attack civilians with impunity.

I strongly support a role for NATO to bolster the African Union's mission, until the U.N. peacekeeping mission can be fully deployed, which could take a year or more.

Only a few nations have the trained troops to contribute and their numbers are stretched thin among many of the U.N. missions around the world. But NATO troops on the ground could reinforce the African Union force with their superior command and control and intelligence- gathering capabilities.

Until recently, the Bush administration refused to support additional troops. However, in the last several weeks, President Bush has shown a renewed interest in Darfur. On March 9, in a hearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice testified the administration is committed to the deployment of a larger peacekeeping force, and I agree with her on that.

Despite the encouraging rhetoric, the administration continues to underfund the African Union mission. The $161 million requested in the Fiscal Year 2006 supplemental request for peacekeeping in Darfur will only cover the U.S. share to sustain the current number of troops.

It will not do anything to pay for the additional troops that President Bush has finally acknowledged that we need. With people dying needlessly every week, the President must address the Darfur crisis more urgently.

Earlier this week, I was pleased to cosponsor an amendment, which was accepted, to the FY 2006 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill to add $50 million in peacekeeping funds for Darfur.

The funds in the supplemental bill for peacekeeping in Darfur were barely adequate to support the current African Union mission through the rest of

this fiscal year. The additional $50 million will go to training and equipping the African Union force that has done its best despite scarce training and too little heavy equipment.

There is no question the Government of Sudan bears a great deal of responsibility for the crimes against humanity that have occurred and continue to occur within its borders, and now in eastern Chad.

It has sponsored brutal militias, hampered the African Union peacekeepers, and impeded the work of the international relief organization.

Most recently, it has opposed reconstituting the African Union force as a U.N. force, presumably fearing that the United Nations could pose a challenge to its own ability to act with impunity in a part of the world that is often beyond the spotlight of public scrutiny.

But we in this country, the richest, most powerful Nation on Earth, a country blessed with so many advantages, have done too little to stop the genocide in Sudan. Many more lives could have been saved if we and other nations had shown stronger leadership.

This is not just an economic or military issue; this is a moral issue. With all the blessings this country receives, we have a moral responsibility to stop genocide.

In our history, we have known what has happened when we have moved too slowly when we had a chance to stop genocide. We either moved too slowly or we did not move at all when genocide occurred.

Let us match the rhetoric with resources to support the number of troops needed to do the job. Let us set an example by our own leadership to the rest of the world that we will put an end to the violence. This is something on which I believe all Americans-- Republicans and Democrats--would agree. It is something that, if we believe in a higher calling, we will do.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, recently The New York Times ran another profile of Bob Newhart. I say ``another'' because it is one of so many glowing articles written about him over the years.

Marcelle and I are fortunate to know Bob and his wife Virginia, known by everyone as Ginnie. Bob is a wonderful family person who enjoys being with his wife, children, and grandchildren, but still has time to bring joy to everyone who comes in contact with him. As many times as I have heard some of his comedy routines, I still find myself convulsed in laughter, though nothing can equal the quiet times Marcelle and I have been able to spend with the Newharts.

Bob is extraordinarily well read and well informed and brings a wry and insightful view to whatever is happening. I can think of no one who is his equal, and I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senators Specter, Kohl, DeWine and others on a new bill, the Oil and Gas Industry Antitrust Act of 2006, which includes, as its centerpiece, our NOPEC legislation, which many of us have worked together on for years.

This measure--The No Oil Producing And Exporting Cartels Act, NOPEC-- would make OPEC accountable for its anticompetitive behavior and allow the Justice Department to crack down on illegal price manipulation by oil cartels. It will allow the Federal Government to take legal action against any foreign state, including members of OPEC, for price fixing and other anticompetitive activities. The tools this bill would provide to law enforcement agencies are necessary to immediately counter OPEC's anticompetitive practices, and these tools would help reduce gasoline prices now.

The Congress should pass this measure immediately instead of waiting until the price of gasoline at the pump is $4 a gallon. OPEC has America over a barrel, and we should fight back. If OPEC were simply a foreign business engaged in this type of behavior, it

would already be subject to American antitrust law. It is wrong to let OPEC producers off the hook just because their anticompetitive practices come with the seal of approval of this cartel's member nations.

It is time for the President to join the bipartisan majority in the Senate which already said ``NO'' to OPEC by passing NOPEC and by sending it to the other body, where it was killed.

The Senate has already passed this bill, which would make OPEC subject to our antitrust laws. In fact, the Judiciary Committee has approved the NOPEC bill three times. Regrettably, even though President Bush promised in 2000 that he would ``jawbone OPEC,'' the Bush administration and its friends in the House have scuttled the NOPEC bill and the direct and daily relief it would bring to millions of Americans.

In addition, this bill makes it unlawful to divert petroleum or natural gas products from their local market to a distant market with the primary intention of increasing prices or creating a shortage in a market. This solves a real problem where products are being shipped for sale in that market but are later diverted and sold for less in another market.

We have an obligation to address these and other issues caused by oil cartels and by greedy companies who have money--that they have extracted from the American people--to burn. That is why I am also pleased that the bill includes provisions to conduct several studies that address serious competition, information sharing, and other antitrust problem areas related to the oil and natural gas industries. The American people deserve answers, and this bill also provides a path to getting those answers.

Authorizing tough legal action against illegal oil price fixing, and taking that action without delay, is one thing we can do without additional obstruction or delay.

The artificial pricing scheme enforced by OPEC affects all of us, not the least of whom are hardworking Vermont farmers. The overall increase in fuel costs for an average Vermont farmer last year was 43 percent, meaning that each farmer is estimated to pay an additional $700 in fuel surcharges in 2006 alone. Vermonters know what the terrible consequences of these high prices can be: forcing many farmers to make unfair choices between running their farms or heating their homes. No one should be forced to make these choices, certainly not our hard- working farmers.

In summary, this bill will provide law enforcement with the tools necessary to fight OPEC's anticompetitive practices immediately, and help reduce gasoline prices now. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and to say ``NO'' to OPEC as we have done in the past.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Honest Services Act of 2006,''--a bill to provide new tools for Federal prosecutors to combat public corruption in our government. The purpose of this bill is to strengthen the tools available to Federal prosecutors to combat public corruption. This bill articulates more clearly for lobbyists, members of Congress, and Congressional staff the line that cannot be crossed regarding links between gifts or special favors and official acts, without incurring criminal liability.

Just recently, the Senate passed the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006, S. 2349--the first lobbying reform bill in Congress in over a decade. I voted for the lobbying reform bill and I believe that this legislation takes an important step toward restoring the public's confidence in Congress.

I was disappointed, however, that I did not have an opportunity to offer the bill that I now propose as an amendment to the lobbying reform bill because cloture was invoked very early in the floor debate. My amendment would have offered an important and needed new dimension to the lobbying reform bill by strengthening our criminal public corruption laws.

Although it is certainly important to have high ethical standards within Congress and more transparency in the lobbying process, vigorous enforcement of our Federal public corruption laws is also an important component of this effort to restore public confidence in government. Indeed, it was only with the indictments of Jack Abramoff, Michael Scanlon, and Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham that Congress took note of the serious ethics scandals that have grown over the last years. If we are serious about restoring public confidence in Congress, we need to do more than just reform the lobbying disclosure laws and ethics rules. Congress must send a signal that it will not tolerate this type of public corruption by providing better tools Federal prosecutors to combat it.

This bill will do exactly that. The bill creates a better legal framework for combating public corruption than currently exists under our criminal laws. It specifies the crime of Honest Services Fraud Involving Members of Congress and prohibits defrauding or depriving the American people of the honest services of their elected representatives.

Under this bill, lobbyists who improperly seek to influence legislation and other official matters by giving expensive gifts, lavish entertainment and travel, and inside advice on investments to Members of Congress and their staff would be held criminally liable for their actions. The law also prohibits Members of Congress and their

staff from accepting these types of gifts and favors, or holding hidden financial interests, in return for being influenced in carrying out their official duties. Violators are subject to a criminal fine and up to 20 years imprisonment, or both.

This legislation strengthens the tools available to Federal prosecutors to combat public corruption, by removing some of the legal hurdles to public corruption prosecutions. Under current law, Federal prosecutors often have great difficulty bringing public corruption cases because it is difficult to prove a specific quid pro quo under the Federal bribery statute. In addition, the current honest services fraud statute--18 U.S.C. 1346--requires that prosecutors must also show that misconduct occurred via the mail or wire, even when there is clear evidence of an improper link between gifts and an official act. My bill makes it possible for Federal prosecutors to bring public corruption cases without having to first overcome these hurdles.

The bill also provides lobbyists, Members of Congress, and other individuals with much-needed notice and clarification as to what kind of conduct triggers this criminal offense. For much of the 20th Century, honest services fraud was a common law offense which courts read into the federal mail and wire fraud statutes. In 1987, the Supreme Court invalidated this common law concept in the case of McNally v. United States. In response to the McNally case, Congress subsequently added an honest services mail and wire fraud statute--18 U.S.C. 1346--to the Federal criminal code. Section 1346 has been regularly relied upon by prosecutors in public corruption cases ever since. However, that provision is often criticized for being too vague or for failing to give public officials sufficient notice about what type of conduct is covered by the statute. Courts have also disagreed about exactly what this statute means. My bill will help to resolve the confusion about honest services fraud in the legislative context, by setting out a well-defined honest services fraud offense for violations involving Members of Congress. In addition, the bill's intent requirements ensure that corrupt conduct can be appropriately prosecuted, but that innocuous actions will not be inappropriately targeted.

Lastly, my bill authorizes $25 million in additional federal funds over each of the next four years to give federal prosecutors needed resources to investigate public corruption. According to the FBI's 2004-2009 Strategic Plan, reducing public corruption in our country's Federal, State, and local governments is one of the FBI's top investigative priorities--behind only terrorism, espionage, and cyber crimes. However, an August 2005 report by the Department of Justice's Inspector General, found that, since 2000, there has been an overall reduction in the number of public corruption matters investigated by the FBI. That report noted that, in 2004, the FBI referred 63 fewer public corruption cases to the United States Attorney's offices across the Nation than it referred in 2000. My bill will give the FBI and the Public Integrity Section within the Department of Justice new resources to hire additional public corruption investigators and public corruption prosecutors.

If we are serious about addressing the egregious misconduct that we have recently witnessed, Congress must enact meaningful legislation to strengthen our public corruption laws and give investigators and prosecutors the resources they need to enforce these laws.

The unfolding public corruption investigations involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former Representative Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham demonstrate that unethical conduct by public officials has broad ranging impact. Just last month, the Washington Post reported that, as an outgrowth of the Cunningham investigation, federal investigators and the Pentagon are now looking into contracts awarded by the Pentagon's new intelligence agency--the Counterintelligence Field Activity--to MZM, Inc., a company run by Mitchell J. Wade, who recently pleaded guilty to conspiring to bribe Mr. Cunningham. The Cunningham case demonstrates that our democracy and national security depend upon a healthy, efficient, and ethical government.

The American people expect--and deserve--to be confident that their representatives in Congress perform their legislative duties in a manner that is beyond reproach and that is in the public interest.

Because I strongly believe that Congress must do more to restore the public's trust in their Congress, I urge all Senators to support this bill.

Mr. President, I join with Senator Jeffords today to introduce the Vermont Wilderness Act of 2006, to designate two new wilderness areas and to make a number of additions to existing wilderness areas in Vermont's Green Mountain National Forest. This legislation will also designate a new National Recreation Area (NRA) in the Green Mountain National Forest in the area commonly known as Moosalamoo.

The U.S. Forest Service has recently released its Record of Decision (ROD) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the revision of

the Green Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. This has been an effort encompassing several years, a lengthy process including significant public involvement, and a great deal of difficult and detailed work on the part of the Forest Service staff in Vermont and our region.

I want to extend my appreciation and thanks to the staff of the Green Mountain National Forest for their perseverance and professionalism throughout the plan revision process. This has been by no means an easy task, with Vermonters and other interested citizens who care deeply about the National Forest weighing in with sincere and often conflicting views on land, resource and forest management decisions.

While there is much of interest in such a comprehensive plan, the primary role of the Congress lies with wilderness and other related special designations, such as National Recreation Areas. The Vermont Congressional Delegation has taken this responsibility seriously as we have sought a compromise between those who would prefer significant additions in wilderness areas and those who would prefer none. If this recommendation were enacted, about a quarter of the current Green Mountain National Forest would be designated as wilderness.

Just as the recently released Land and Resource Management Plan for the Green Mountain National Forest has elicited abundant feedback across the spectrum of interested citizens and organizations, we expect our proposal to do the same. We offer this legislation as a good-faith effort to find a middle ground, and once this proposal is referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry--of which I am a member--we will welcome constructive comments and criticisms to improve the bill. Since the Vermont Congressional Delegation has long been on the public record in favor of additional wilderness designations within the Green Mountain National Forest, comments that are as specific as possible will be especially helpful in helping to refine our proposal.

In specific terms, this legislation proposes a new wilderness area in the Glastenbury Mountain area of approximately 28,500 acres. In the Romance, Monastery and Worth Mountain areas the bill proposes adding approximately 12,500 acres, which together would become the Battell Wilderness in honor of Joseph Battell, who once owned some 9,000 acres in this area and bequeathed thousands of acres to Middlebury College, which eventually became the core of the north half of the Green Mountain National Forest.

The bill also proposes designating approximately 4,200 acres for addition to the existing Breadloaf Wilderness, 2,200 acres to the Lye Brook Wilderness, 800 acres to the Peru Peak Wilderness, and 40 acres to the Big Branch Wilderness. The proposed Moosalamoo National Recreation Area covers approximately 17,000 acres.

This legislation does not include additional acreage for the George D. Aiken Wilderness Area or the Bristol Cliffs Wilderness Area. It does not propose a wilderness designation for the area known as Lamb Brook, and it does not propose a new National Recreation Area in the Somerset region.

Our legislation builds on the recommendations of the Forest Service. In many areas the Delegation bill closely tracks the Forest Service plan--Breadloaf, Big Branch and Peru Peak areas are nearly identical. In the Glastenbury area, the Forest Service added more than 8,000 acres to their original plan, and we have further increased the acreage of a proposed Glastenbury Wilderness Area. In addition, this legislation adds about 2,000 acres to the Lye Brook Wilderness, above the Forest Service recommendation. Finally, we are proposing the new Battell Wilderness Area, which encompasses lands the Forest Service included in a Remote Backcountry management category, which is essentially managed as a wilderness area.

In the Moosalamoo area, this legislation codifies the Moosalamoo National Recreation Area, which has the strong support of the various communities and local partners in the area. We believe this designation best represents the actual goals of the various stakeholders and merits this national designation. Furthermore, we have included the Forest Service's Escarpment management category in the designated area and have also included previously agreed upon management guidelines in the bill.

I would offer the following thoughts which we have returned to on those numerous occasions over recent years whenever this subject has been brought up for discussion in our State.

In sponsoring this legislation today, the Vermont Congressional Delegation is demonstrating our commitment to additional wilderness designations on the Green Mountain National Forest. The Green Mountain National Forest is the largest contiguous public land area in Vermont and within a days drive for over 70 million people. We are committed to protecting some National Forest lands for future generations under the National Wilderness Preservation System.

Our proposals have not been driven by acreage quotas, but rather by data supplied by the Forest Service and by interested Vermonters. Therefore, what is too much for some will be too little for others.

The timing of this introduction was conditioned so as to allow the Forest Service process to reach its conclusion and, at the same time, to enable Vermonters and other interested parties to review both the Forest Service and the Delegation recommendations. Throughout our deliberations, we have appreciated the help of the Forest Service staff and have recognized their commitment to their planning regulations, guidelines and timetable. We invite all Vermonters to join us in thanking the Forest Service staff for all the hard work in their planning effort.

While this legislation proposes to add significant wilderness to the Green Mountain National Forest, it bears noting that most of the lands designated in this bill are not suitable for timber harvesting. This legislation would retain many thousands of acres available for timber harvesting which will have to be managed in a fair, open and professional manner. We are committed to the development of such a process and we know the Forest Service shares this commitment. We invite all interested parties to join in this effort. It is our hope that given the superior manner in which the Forest Service conducted the Forest Plan Revision process, unnecessary appeals and litigation of the plan and future management activities can be avoided.

The Green Mountain National Forest has expanded since the last wilderness designations were made. As Senator Stafford, then Congressman Jeffords and I remember, during the consideration of the last Vermont Wilderness bill in 1984 there were many perspectives on the use of our National Forest. We assume there will be again this time. As we were 1984, we remain committed to carrying on the strong conservation legacy that generations of Vermonters, like Senator Robert Stafford, have fostered over the decades.

We urge anyone who is interested in the Green Mountain National Forest to review the whole Plan, as the Forest Service has recommended, and to look beyond their own primary areas of concern so that we can all do what we can to help implement the Plan.

In closing, I would note that the Delegation knows that you cannot undertake every possible use on every acre of National Forest land, and we believe most Vermonters support our approach to this issue. In recognition of this fact, we are introducing this legislation as a vision for the Green Mountain Forest for this and future generations.