Floor Statements

Madam President, I am pleased today to join Senator McCain in introducing important legislation to increase the number of frequencies available for low power radio stations in America. Low power stations serve their communities with broadcasting that reflects local needs and local preferences. In this way, low power FM offers a valuable counterpoint to nationwide media consolidation. For this reason, I have been a strong supporter of low power FM for many years now. In fact, I recently urged FCC Chairman Powell to expedite licensing for new low power stations.

Unfortunately, for many years now, the number of low power FM stations the FCC could license has been limited by unrealistic and unnecessary rules requiring these small stations to find available frequencies far from any full power broadcaster. Interference must be avoided if we are to make use of the airwaves. The current rules, however, go beyond what is necessary to protect full power stations from interference, and instead protect them from competition. The focus of today's legislation is the so-called ``third-adjacent rule,'' which requires that a low power station not broadcast within three frequency intervals of a full power station.

For example, if a full power station were broadcasting at 101.1, the first-adjacent frequencies would be 99.9 and 101.3 and those would be unavailable for broadcasting. The second-adjacent frequencies would be 99.7 and 101.5 and they too would be off-limits. Finally, the third- adjacent frequencies would be 99.5 and 101.7, and under the current rule, those frequencies would also be unavailable. Thus, the existence of just one full power station effectively keeps low power radio from broadcasting anywhere between 99.5 and 101.7. It is easy to see how a radio dial can quickly become off-limits for any low power broadcaster.

A recent study by the FCC concludes that this third-adjacent rule is not necessary to protect full power broadcasters from unreasonable interference. Our new bill simply implements those findings and conclusions. It eliminates the third-adjacent rule, and allows the FCC to license low power stations in accordance with its own studies and findings about potential interference from these stations.

Of course, the need for low power FM radio must be balanced against other important uses of nearby frequencies. I have worked hard to protect reading services for the blind, and this bill protects those services by retaining the third-adjacent rule where such services would be affected. In addition, this bill protects commercial broadcasters of all sizes from actual interference by leaving intact the FCC's expedited interference claim review procedures.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this important bill forward, to strengthen local broadcasting.

Madam President, I am pleased today to join Senator McCain in introducing important legislation to increase the number of frequencies available for low power radio stations in America. Low power stations serve their communities with broadcasting that reflects local needs and local preferences. In this way, low power FM offers a valuable counterpoint to nationwide media consolidation. For this reason, I have been a strong supporter of low power FM for many years now. In fact, I recently urged FCC Chairman Powell to expedite licensing for new low power stations.

Unfortunately, for many years now, the number of low power FM stations the FCC could license has been limited by unrealistic and unnecessary rules requiring these small stations to find available frequencies far from any full power broadcaster. Interference must be avoided if we are to make use of the airwaves. The current rules, however, go beyond what is necessary to protect full power stations from interference, and instead protect them from competition. The focus of today's legislation is the so-called ``third-adjacent rule,'' which requires that a low power station not broadcast within three frequency intervals of a full power station.

For example, if a full power station were broadcasting at 101.1, the first-adjacent frequencies would be 99.9 and 101.3 and those would be unavailable for broadcasting. The second-adjacent frequencies would be 99.7 and 101.5 and they too would be off-limits. Finally, the third- adjacent frequencies would be 99.5 and 101.7, and under the current rule, those frequencies would also be unavailable. Thus, the existence of just one full power station effectively keeps low power radio from broadcasting anywhere between 99.5 and 101.7. It is easy to see how a radio dial can quickly become off-limits for any low power broadcaster.

A recent study by the FCC concludes that this third-adjacent rule is not necessary to protect full power broadcasters from unreasonable interference. Our new bill simply implements those findings and conclusions. It eliminates the third-adjacent rule, and allows the FCC to license low power stations in accordance with its own studies and findings about potential interference from these stations.

Of course, the need for low power FM radio must be balanced against other important uses of nearby frequencies. I have worked hard to protect reading services for the blind, and this bill protects those services by retaining the third-adjacent rule where such services would be affected. In addition, this bill protects commercial broadcasters of all sizes from actual interference by leaving intact the FCC's expedited interference claim review procedures.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this important bill forward, to strengthen local broadcasting.

Reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent that the next votes all be 10 minutes.

Mr. President, today the Senate is proceeding to confirm Sandra Lynn Townes to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Justice Townes is currently an associate justice of the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, where she has served for several years. She previously served as a judge in the Fifth Judicial District of the New York State Supreme Court. According to press reports, Justice Townes is the first African-American woman to serve on the appellate bench in New York and the first African-American Judge elected to the New York Supreme Court in the Fifth District. She was also a judge of the City Court of Syracuse from 1988 to 1999.

Her extensive record of judicial experience commends her for this lifetime appointment, and I am pleased to join her home-State Senators in support of her nomination.

Today's confirmation will make the 178th judicial nominee to be confirmed for this President. With 78 judicial confirmations in just the past year and a half alone, the Senate has confirmed more Federal judges than were confirmed during all of 1995 and 1996, when Republicans controlled the Senate and President Clinton was in the White House. It also exceeds the 2-year total for the last Congress of the Clinton administration, when Republicans were in the Senate majority. We have already exceeded the totals for the last two Congresses leading up to presidential elections.

When Democrats controlled the Senate for 17 months in 2001 and 2002, we worked diligently to confirm 100 of President Bush's judicial nominees. We are now confirming the 78th in the other 24 months that have transpired during this most divisive presidency. With 178 total judicial confirmations in 3\1/2\ years, the Senate has confirmed more lifetime judicial appointees of this President than were allowed to be confirmed in President Clinton's entire term from 1997 through 2000. We have already surpassed the number of judicial confirmations during President Reagan's entire term from 1981 through 1984, and he is acknowledged to have appointed more Federal judges than any other president in our history.

The Republican Senate leadership has again chosen to avoid debate of the nomination of J. Leon Holmes and Judge Dora Irizarry. Just so that there is no confusion, it is the choice of the Republican Senate leadership to skip those nominations.

The Holmes nomination will take some significant debate. The nomination was sent by the Judiciary Committee to the floor without recommendation, a highly unusual circumstance. That means that there was not a majority vote in committee to report the nomination favorably. The committee disserved the Senate by not doing its job of fully vetting the nomination and reaching a consensus or even a vote on the merits.

It is also the decision of the Republican leadership to skip the nomination

of Judge Irizarry, which has been pending on the Senate floor since last October. She is one of many Bush nominees with a ``not qualified'' or partial ``not qualified'' rating from the ABA. With the support of Senator Schumer, her nomination was considered and favorably reported by the committee. For months Democrats have been ready to vote on that district court nomination. The delay in considering her nomination since last October, a delay of 7 months, is attributable to the reluctance of the Republican Senate leadership to consider her nomination.

It is reminiscent of the way the Republican leadership treated the nomination of other Hispanics. For example, President Clinton's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the 2nd Circuit was delayed for 16 months and was likewise stalled by Republicans on the Senate calendar for 7 months. Judge Richard Paez's nomination to the 9th Circuit was delayed for more than 4 years and was stalled by Republicans on the Senate calendar for more than 18 months alone. More recently, Republican Senate leadership even delayed Senate consideration of President Bush's nomination of Judge Edward Prado of Texas to the 5th Circuit for a month on the calendar, until we called them on it. Considering Judge Prado's nomination in a timely fashion would not have fit with the partisan political characterizations that Republicans wanted to draw of Democrats so they just left him on the shelf for a time.

The Republican leadership must be accountable for its scheduling priorities and the delays that it is causing in the consideration of the President's judicial nominations.

I congratulate Justice Townes and her family on her confirmation today.

Mr. President, I thank the Senators on both sides of the aisle who have worked with me and others in the past few weeks to get through this logjam on judges.

I yield back any remaining time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, this evening the Senate considers the nomination of Kenneth Karas to be a United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York. For the past 11 years, Mr. Karas has served as an assistant United States attorney for the Southern District of New York. He received a favorable rating from the American Bar Association and he has the support of both Senators from his home State.

In sharp contrast to so many judicial nominees of this President, apparently selected for their political viewpoint, Mr. Karas appears to be a well-qualified, moderate nominee. He has advocated for civil rights and the rights of the indigent and has served the public as an assistant U.S. attorney for 11 years.

Mr. Karas's testimony and answers to my questions have made me confident that he will treat all who appear before him with respect. The nomination of Mr. Karas is an example of how effectively Democrats and Republicans can work together when we have qualified, moderate nominees.

Mr. Karas will be the ninth of President Bush's nominees confirmed to Federal court vacancies in New York, leaving only one vacancy on the Federal judiciary in the State. The nominee to that vacancy was favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee to the Senate 7 months ago. It has been the decision of the Republican leadership not to move the nomination of Judge Dora Irizarry, a Latina nominee. Democrats have been ready to vote on Judge Irizarry's nomination.

With 79 judicial confirmations in just the past year and a half, the Senate has confirmed more Federal judges than were confirmed during either Congress leading to a presidential election with a Democratic President and Republican Senate majority in 1996 and 2000.

This marks the 179th judicial confirmation since President Bush took office. That is more than President Reagan, the acknowledged all-time champion, achieved in his entire 4-year presidential term from 1981 through 1984 working hand in hand with a Republican Senate majority. It is more than President Clinton was able to achieve in his entire 4-year presidential term from 1993 through 1996, having to work with a Republican Senate majority during 1995 and 1996.

I congratulate Mr. Karas and his family on his confirmation today.

Today the Senate is proceeding to confirm Judith Herrera to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. Ms. Herrera is a partner with the Santa Fe firm of Herrera, Long, Pound & Komer, which she co-founded in 1987. She appears in court frequently on behalf of employers, and their insurance companies, serving as defense counsel in employment discrimination and wrongful discharge cases. Before starting this practice, she handled education cases and also served briefly as a local prosecutor. She also previously served on the Sante Fe City Council. She has the support of both of her home-state Senators.

Democratic support for the confirmation of Ms. Herrera, an active Republican, is yet another example of our extraordinary cooperation in this Presidential election year. Today's confirmation will make the 180th judicial nominee to be confirmed since this President took office. With 80 lifetime judicial appointments confirmed in just the past year and a half alone, the Senate has confirmed more Federal judges than were confirmed during the all of 1995 and 1996, when Republicans first controlled the Senate and President Clinton was in the White House. It also exceeds the 2-year total for the last Congress of the Clinton administration, when Republicans held the Senate. This Senate has now confirmed more Federal judges than were confirmed during either Congress leading to a presidential election with a Democratic President and Republican Senate majority in 1996 and 2000.

This marks the 180th judicial confirmation since President Bush took office. That is more than President Reagan, the acknowledged all-time champion, achieved in his entire 4-year Presidential term from 1981 through 1984 working hand in hand with a Republican Senate majority. It is more than President Clinton was able to achieve in his entire 4-year Presidential term from 1993 through 1996, having to work with a Republican Senate majority during 1995 and 1996.

I have already noted that at the Republican Senate leadership has again chosen to avoid debate of the nomination of J. Leon Holmes and Judge Dora

Irizarry. These two district court nominees have been pending on the Senate floor longer than any of the other pending district court nominees. Just so that there is no confusion, that is the choice of the Republican Senate leadership to skip those nominations.

The Holmes nomination will require significant debate. It was sent by the Judiciary Committee to the floor without recommendation, a highly unusual circumstance. That means that there was not a majority vote in committee to report the nomination favorably. The committee disserved the Senate by not doing its job of fully vetting the nomination and reaching a consensus or even a vote on the merits.

With regard to Mr. Holmes, to excuse widely shared misgivings about this nomination partisan Republicans are falsely claiming that the opposition to him is based on his religion. That is a slander. Nonetheless, right wing groups like the Committee for Justice have run outrageous and false ads and propaganda against Democrats and have posted assertions that Democrats are anti-Catholic.

Ms. Herrera is, of course, another among the scores of judicial nominees we have confirmed who are active in their faith. Ms. Herrera has stated in her Senate questionnaire that she is on the Board of Directors of the St. Michael's High School Foundation, a local Catholic high school, and she is a parishioner at St. Francis Cathedral. It is wrong for Republican partisans to seek political benefit by falsely claiming that Democrats are anti-Catholic and insulting for them to claim that Catholic Democrats are somehow not Catholic enough. Senator Durbin just released a study this week that shows that Democrats actually vote more often in agreement with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on domestic and international issues than their counterparts across the aisle. Yet the destructive Republican politics of division persist. These are unfortunate and dangerous schemes that will only further divide our people and our Nation. Anna Quindlen's recent column in Newsweek, Casting the First Stone, captures the heart of this current tendency to mix religion and politics into a concoction that some Republican strategists hope will help them at the ballot box. I ask unanimous consent that this editorial be printed in the Record.

I also want to focus briefly on how Republicans continue to delay consideration of some Hispanic judicial nominees. For some time the only Hispanic nomination of this President to the first 42 circuit court vacancies was the ill-fated nomination of a young man whose record was kept from the Senate by the Bush administration and who was opposed by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, prominent Latino leaders of the civil rights community and by many others. This single nomination was in sharp contrast to the many Hispanic nominees sent to the Senate by President Clinton. In fact, eight of the Hispanic jurists serving on our circuit courts today were named by President Clinton, and at least three other Clinton Hispanic circuit nominees would be sitting on the bench now if they had not been denied consideration by a Republican-controlled Senate.

When Democratic Senators supported the confirmation of Judge Edward Prado, President Bush's nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Senate Republican leadership delayed consideration of that nomination for a month on the floor for no good reason, other than to allow us to vote on this Hispanic nominee would undercut their false charges that Democrats were anti-Hispanic. Judge Prado had a fair record, years of experience as a Federal District Court judge, and broad support from both sides of the aisle. Nonetheless, in order to get Judge Prado a vote, I had to come before the Senate on a number of occasions to urge his consideration because the Republican leadership was delaying final Senate consideration of his nomination.

Now the Republican leadership seems to be returning to its earlier ways and is again passing over Hispanic nominees without explanation. Last October, 7 months ago, the Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported the nomination of Judge Dora Irizarry of New York to be a United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of New York. This was not a nomination without some controversy. The

American Bar Association accorded her a majority rating of ``not qualified,'' as it has several of this President's judicial nominees. Nonetheless, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on her nomination. The Members of the Committee examined the nomination on the merits and reached their own judgment. With the support of Senator Schumer of New York, the nomination was favorably reported. While Senate consideration will include some brief debate, there is no reason this matter has not been scheduled and considered in the last seven months. It could easily have been considered during the course of an extended quorum call during any one of the many days when there is no significant business taking place on the Senate floor. As I have reiterated for months, there is no Democratic hold on this nomination. It merits a brief discussion, but we are prepared to vote on it. Republican delay has prevented action on this nomination.

I do not recall this lengthy a delay in scheduling debate on a Latina nominee since the untoward Republican obstruction of Senate consideration of President Clinton's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1999. That nomination of an outstanding judge, who had been appointed to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush, was delayed for more than 400 days in all and waited 7 months on the Senate floor, before we were able to force action and a vote on her confirmation. According to some accounts, she was delayed over Republican concerns that she would be chosen by President Clinton for the Supreme Court if a vacancy arose.

Likewise, the Senate's Republican leadership has not yet scheduled a vote on the nomination of Ricardo S. Martinez to be a United States District Court Judge for the Western District of Washington or Juan R. Sanchez to be a United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Despite Republican delays in the consideration of President Bush's Hispanic nominees, the Senate has already confirmed, unanimously, three of his Hispanic nominees to the circuit courts and 11 to the district courts. Ms. Herrera will be the 12th Latino district court nominee and 15th overall confirmed by the Senate.

Unfortunately this White House's commitment to diversity seems shallow when compared to its devotion to ideological purity. The President has nominated many more members of the Federalist Society than members of the nation's fastest growing ethnic group. The White House has sent over the nominations of more than 45 individuals active in the Federalist Society, which is more than twice as many Latinos as he has nominated. In fact, the President has chosen more individuals involved in the Federalist Society than Latinos, African Americans, and Asian Americans combined.

We have made significant progress over the last three years in reducing Federal judicial vacancies. As of today, there are only 43 total vacancies in the Federal court system. That stands in sharp contrast to the treatment Republicans accorded President Clinton's nominees. Indeed, under Republican leadership, from 1995 to the summer of 2001 the number of vacancies in the federal courts rose from 63 to 110. We have now made up that 67 percent increase in vacancies the Republican Senate leadership had engineered between 1995 and 2001, and we have reduced vacancies from the 1995 level by one third, to the lowest vacancy level in 14 years. In spite of the way more than 60 of President Clinton's nominees were defeated by Republicans' objections, Senate Democrats have cooperated in the consideration and confirmation of 180 of this President's judicial nominations.

We now have 16 vacancies in the circuit courts. That is the number of vacancies that existed when Republicans took majority control of the Senate in 1995. Unfortunately, through Republican obstruction of moderate nominations by President Clinton, those circuit vacancies more than doubled, rising to 33 by the time Democrats resumed Senate leadership in the summer of 2001. We steadily reduced circuit vacancies over the 17 months that Senate Democrats were in charge. Even though since 2001 an additional 15 circuit vacancies have arisen, we have done what Republicans refused to do when President Clinton was in the White House by not only keeping up with attrition but actually working to reduce vacancies. We have now reduced circuit vacancies to the lowest level since before Republican Senate leadership irresponsibly doubled those vacancies in the years 1995 through 2001.

We should recognize the progress we have made. I certainly recognize the entirely different approach to judicial nominations Republicans have taken with a Republican President's nominations in contrast to their systematic obstruction of Senate action on President Clinton's judicial nominations. I would hope that we will be able to find ways to work together without too much more delay to consider the Hispanic nominees to the federal bench who Democrats are supporting.

I congratulate Ms. Herrera and her family on her confirmation today.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is taking up and passing the legislation that Senator Hatch and I introduced together to reauthorize and expand the Department of Justice grant program for the Boys & Girls Clubs of America. We reported it out of the Judiciary Committee this morning, and I thank the Senate for moving our bipartisan legislation so quickly. I also thank our 30 bipartisan cosponsors, including the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, the assistant Democratic leader, Senator Reid, and Judiciary Committee members Senators DeWine, Kohl, Biden, Feinstein, Craig, Sessions, Durbin, Edwards, Schumer and Chambliss, for supporting our legislation to support the Boys & Girls Clubs of America.

Too often the public sees Republicans and Democrats disagreeing. From time to time, even Senator Hatch and I disagree on important issues. But when it comes to the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, there is no doubt that we see eye-to-eye. This bill shows the unified support of Republicans and Democrats for the good works of Boys & Girls Clubs across the nation.

Children are the future of our country, and we have a responsibility to make sure they are safe and secure. I know firsthand how well Boys & Girls Clubs work and what topnotch organizations they are. When I was a prosecutor in Vermont, I was convinced of the great need for Boys & Girls Clubs because we rarely encountered children from these kinds of programs. In fact, after I became a U.S. Senator, a police chief was such a big fan that he asked me to help fund a Boys & Girls Club in his district rather than helping him get a couple more police officers.

In Vermont, Boys & Girls Clubs have succeeded in preventing crime and supporting our children. The first club was established in Burlington 62 years ago. Now we have 22 club sites operating throughout the State: seven clubs in Brattleboro, one in Springfield, two clubs in Burlington, one in Winooski, two clubs in Montpelier, five clubs in Randolph, one club in Rutland, two clubs in Vergennes, and one in Bristol. There are 10 additional project sites that will be on board and serving kids by the end of 2005: one in Bennington, two in Burlington, one in Duxbury, one in St. Johnsbury, one in Hardwick, three in Randolph, and one in Ludlow. These clubs will serve well over 10,000 kids statewide.

As a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have pushed for more Federal funding for Boys & Girls Clubs. Since 1998, Congress has increased Federal support for Boys & Girls Clubs from $20 million to $80 million in this year. Due in large part to this increase in funding, there now exist 3,300 Boys & Girls Clubs in all 50 States serving more than 3.6 million young people. Because of these successes, I was both surprised and disappointed to see that the President requested a reduction of $20 million for fiscal year 2005. That request will leave thousands of children and their clubs behind and we cannot allow such a thing to happen.

In the 107th Congress, Senator Hatch and I worked together to pass the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, which included a provision to reauthorize Justice Department grants to establish new Boys & Girls Clubs nationwide. By authorizing $80 million in DOJ grants for each of the fiscal years through 2005, we sought to establish 1,200 additional Boys & Girls Clubs nationwide. This was to bring the number of Boys & Girls Clubs to 4,000, serving no less than 5 million young people. This bill will build upon this: we authorize Justice Department grants at $80 million for fiscal year 2006, $85 million for fiscal year 2007, $90 million for fiscal year 2008, $95 million for fiscal year 2009 and $100 million for fiscal year 2010 to Boys & Girls Clubs to help establish 1,500 additional Boys & Girls Clubs across the Nation with the goal of having 5,000

Boys & Girls Clubs in operation by December 31, 2010.

If we had a Boys & Girls Club in every community, prosecutors in our country would have a lot less work to do because of the values that are being instilled in children from the Boys & Girls Clubs of America. Each time I visit a club in Vermont, I am approached by parents, educators, teachers, grandparents, and law enforcement officers who tell me ``Keep doing this! These clubs give our children the chance to grow up free of drugs, gangs and crime.''

You cannot argue that these are just Democratic or Republican ideas, or conservative or liberal ideas--they are simply good-sense ideas. We need safe havens where our youth--the future of our country--can learn and grow up free from the influences of drugs, gangs and crime. That is why Boys & Girls Clubs are so important to our children.

I thank the Senate for taking up and passing our bipartisan bill to expand Federal support for the Boys & Girls Clubs of America. Our country's strength and ultimate success lies with our children. Our greatest responsibility is to help them inhabit this century the best way possible and we can help do that by supporting the Boys & Girls Clubs of America.

Mr. President, I ask the distinguished chairman if I might have 30 seconds.

I will be very brief so the Senator from South Carolina can speak.

Mr. President, I agree with the distinguished chairman of the Armed

Services Committee. As he knows, I came from the funeral of a Guard member in Vermont, and I might say to my distinguished friend, the senior Senator from Virginia, the widow of this Guard member was very touched by a message the distinguished Senator from Virginia had expressed to her via me, and I appreciate that. It was his typical generosity of spirit to do so. It tells me in the war on terror, our Guard and Reserves are a 21st century fighting force, but they have a 20th century health insurance, and this partnership with Senator Graham of Florida, Senator Daschle, Senator Clinton, and others has been very good. I hope it will help.

For the past 2 years, we have worked to expand the availability of health insurance to members of the 800,000-person National Guard and Reserve. It is squarely and strongly in our national interest, as well as in the interests of our Guard and Reserve soldiers and their families, to ensure that this force is strong, that our citizen- soldiers are healthy, and that these proud men and women know that there is an extensive benefit network to reward them for their sacrifice.

Two years ago, a GAO study found that almost 20 percent of the reserves, more than 150,000 citizen-soldiers, do not have access to adequate health insurance when they are on drilling status. The bulk of the uninsured reside in the lower ranks, and the study reported that almost 40 percent of the enlisted force in uninsured. In other words, many of the men and women who are prepared to leave their full-time jobs and their families at a moment's notice have no assurance of having access to basic health insurance.

Our Guard and the Reserves are doing more for us than ever before, both at home and abroad. In fairness to them and their families, and in the interest of military readiness, these health care upgrades should be a high priority.

Last year, I was pleased to be part of a bipartisan coalition that worked and succeeded in enacting a strong program to allow members of the Guard and Reserve, who are unemployed or do not have access to health insurance through their employers, to be able to buy into the military's TRICARE program on a cost-share basis. This program guaranteed that every member of the Guard and Reserve would have insurance access from some source, whether from their employers or through the military.

It was surprising and disappointing to me that the administration opposed this program last year, going so far as to threaten a veto of the Defense bill. I am even more disappointed that the Department of Defense has still yet to put the TRICARE buy-in program for reservists in place. That sends a terrible signal to the members of the Guard and Reserve who comprise a substantial portion of our forces deployed abroad and who stand ready to face other national emergencies as they arise. We need to get this program going and to expand it even further, and without needless delay.

This amendment will open up the TRICARE cost-share program to every member of the National Guard and Reserve, providing an affordable source of insurance to every reservist. The amendment also allows the families of activated reservists to maintain their civilian health insurance, which will reduce some of the invariable turbulence from deployments.

This amendment mirrors almost exactly what passed out of the Senate 87 to 10 last year. Since then, the Guard and Reserve have been tapped even more heavily to carry out the military occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I urge the Senate to vote in favor of this critical readiness initiative.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the House of Representatives has now passed the Standards Development Organization Advancement Act, an important piece of legislation on which both parties and both Chambers have been able to reach accord. It is now on its way to the President's desk, and I am confident that he will sign it into law.

In April of this year, Senator Hatch, Senator Kohl, Senator DeWine, and I worked to craft a bipartisan, fair version of this bill that will promote the development of technical standards while preserving antitrust laws that enhance competition. It has been rare during this Congress to achieve the type of consensus generated by our bill, and it illustrates what we can accomplish when both parties work together. This is an example of how Congress should function. I must also express my gratitude to Chairman Sensenbrenner for all his efforts in the House of Representatives, not only for his critical role in shaping this legislation but also for the expeditious way he shepherded the bill through the House.

As I have noted many times, technical standards serve a vital if unseen role in allowing for interoperability of products and making sure that the goods we buy are safe and effective. Whether for airbags or for fire retardant materials, without technical standards, consumers would be less likely to make the purchases that fuel the engine of the U.S. economy. Even more important, aspects of our lives that we consider routine--perhaps even mundane--would take on added dangers without standards that allow consumers to feel confident that a given product is safe and reliable.

There is, however, an unavoidable tension between the antitrust laws that prohibit businesses from colluding and the development of technical standards, which require competitors to reach agreement on basic design elements. The Standards Development Organization Advancement Act eases this tension, allowing standards development organizations to continue their important work while preserving our antitrust laws that enhance competition and protect American consumers.

Without creating an antitrust exemption, the Standards Development Organization Advancement Act will allow standards development organizations to seek review of their standards by the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission prior to implementation. This ``screening'' phase will not let a standards development organization escape penalty for a regulation that a court later rules is in violation of antitrust laws, but it will limit the organization's liability to single damages rather than the treble damages levied under current law.

Additionally, the bill amends the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, by directing courts to apply a ``rule of reason'' standard to standards development organizations and the guidelines they produce. Under existing law, standards may be deemed anticompetitive by a court even if they have the effect of better serving consumers. This legislation gives our courts the needed ability to balance the competing interests of safety and efficiency against any anticompetitive effect--it is a capability our courts need in order to fairly administer justice. Back in the 103rd Congress, I introduced the Senate version of the National Cooperative Production Amendments Act of 1993, and I am glad that we can today build on our earlier successes.

Title II of the Standards Development Organization Advancement Act also addresses several areas of our antitrust laws that merit updating, as our experience with the actual practice in the world has shown. Most importantly, it will eliminate the disparity between the treatment of criminal white collar offenses and antitrust criminal violations--a provision Senator Hatch and I had introduced in S. 1080, the Antitrust Improvements Act of 2003--and it will update and improve the Justice Department's amnesty program in the criminal antitrust context. It will also make some practical adjustments to the language of the Tunney Act. Finally, it will allow a judge to order publication of the comments received in a Tunney Act proceeding by electronic or other means. This provision will make these documents more accessible to the public while saving taxpayers the costs of paper publication.

I am glad that we can send to the President this bill that makes so many useful, fair, and bipartisan changes.

Mr. President, today, we vote to confirm another district court nominee of President Bush, Frank Dennis Saylor, IV, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Mr. Saylor is a partner at the firm of Procter Goodwin. He is supported by both of his home-State Senators, who deserve much credit for his confirmation today.

Today's confirmation will make the 77th judge confirmed this Congress and the 177th judicial nominee named by this President to be confirmed by the Senate. We confirmed 100 in the 17 months that Democrats led the Senate. We are now confirming the 77th in the other 24 months that have transpired during this most divisive presidency.

With 77 judicial confirmations this Congress, the Senate has confirmed more Federal judges than were confirmed during the entire 2 years of 1995 and 1996, when Republicans controlled the Senate and President Clinton was in the White House. It also exceeds the two-year total for the last 2 years of the Clinton administration in 1999 and 2000, when Republicans controlled the Senate. So, we have exceeded the totals for the last two Congresses leading up to presidential elections.

With 177 total confirmations for President Bush in 3\1/2\ years, the Senate has confirmed more lifetime judicial appointees of this President than were allowed to be confirmed in President Clinton's entire term from 1997 through 2000. We have already surpassed the number of judicial confirmations during President Reagan's entire term from 1981 through 1984, and he is acknowledged to have appointed more Federal judges than any other President in our history.

Democratic support for the confirmation of Mr. Saylor, an active Republican who was championed by Republican Governor Mitt Romney for the bench, is yet another example of our extraordinary cooperation. Mr. Saylor's Republican credentials are not in doubt--he was even on some short lists for Bush Administration Executive Branch positions. We take into account his experience and his career as a litigator who has served as both a Federal prosecutor and a defender of those accused of crimes.

I congratulate Mr. Saylor, his wife, Catherine Adams Fiske, who is an attorney with the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice, and their family on his confirmation today.

While this confirmation is another demonstration of good faith and cooperation by Democratic Senators, we, again, see partisan Republicans seeking confrontation. Last week, the President used his recess appointment powers to place Republicans on what should be bipartisan boards and commissions. A good example is the U.S. Parole Commission. While Isaac Fullwood's nomination is being bottled up by Republicans, the President proceeds to recess appoint Deborah Spagnoli. In addition, the President has yet to follow through on Democratic recommendations to longstanding vacancies on the U.S. Sentencing Commission. This week Republicans on the Judiciary Committee will end the short-lived cooperation on judicial nominations and force votes and hearings on controversial nominees, apparently in response to pressure from the right wing of the Republican Party. Republicans are insisting that the Committee break with tradition and proceed on judicial nominees opposed by home-state Senators.

Thus, while this nomination marks historic progress in Democratic Senators' cooperation with the White House, partisan Republicans refuse to take yes for an answer and insist on ignoring the progress that we have made. We have treated President Bush's judicial nominees far more fairly than Republicans treated President Clinton's. Still, no good deed we do goes unpunished.

Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the Koby Mandell Act of 2003. This bill is intended to ensure that all terrorists who commit violent acts against American citizens overseas are punished to the full extent of the law. I have already been working to ensure that the Koby Mandell Act is considered by the Senate and, I expect passed into law.

Three years ago, Koby Mandell was beaten to death in a cave near the Jewish settlement of Tekoa on the West Bank in Israel. Koby Mandell was 13 years old. No one was caught or charged with responsibility for this murder. This tragic story is only one among dozens in which U.S. citizens have been harmed by terrorists, and the U.S. Government has been hindered in its ability to hunt down and prosecute the criminals.

The bill would establish within the Department of Justice an office to ensure that all American citizens who are killed or injured by terrorists operating overseas receive equal treatment by the U.S. Government in its efforts to solve the crime and bring the perpetrators to justice. There would be no difference among cases based on the origin of the terrorists or where they carry out their heinous acts. The investigators and prosecutors associated with this new DOJ office could investigate each incident aggressively, whether the victim is a diplomat, a volunteer teacher like Ted Burgon of Oregon, who was killed in Indonesia in 2002, or a child like Koby Mandell.

Specifically, this bill will create the Office of Justice for Victims of Overseas Terrorism. The Office will ensure that rewards are offered for the capture of terrorists involved in attacks that harm American citizens. It will advertise such rewards and publicize the names and photos of suspects. The Office will establish a notification system to keep victims' families updated on the status of investigations and efforts to capture suspects in each case. It will seek to ensure that suspects are not able to obtain visas to travel to the U.S. In addition, the Office will seek to determine if terrorist suspects who are believed to have participated in attacks on American citizens are employed by local or national police forces. If it finds that suspects are so employed, the Office will seek to curtail any American foreign assistance to those forces. Finally, the Office will undertake a comprehensive assessment of indictments and prosecutions by the U.S. Government against suspected terrorists. It will seek to identify any patterns that would determine the reasons for the absence of indictments in certain cases or in certain countries. This assessment will be conveyed to the Attorney General with recommendations for correcting any shortcomings in attempts to pursue, capture, and prosecute suspects.

Just as we must do all we can to prevent terrorist attacks from occurring on our soil, we must take additional steps to protect our citizens from attack overseas. Where they are targeted and harmed, it is the duty of the U.S. Government to pursue each case of murder or injury vigorously until every terrorist knows that he or she will not escape justice. The Koby Mandell Act is a step toward honoring those who have been lost or harmed, and a step toward deterring future attacks. I am honored to join Senator Smith, Senator Wyden, and the other sponsors of this measure as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, earlier this week, we were able to obtain a firm commitment from the White House that there would be no further judicial recess appointments for the remainder of this presidential term. That undertaking led immediately and directly to the Senate vitiating a cloture vote and proceeding to confirm the nomination of Marcia Cooke to the federal bench in Florida. Today we debate and vote on the nomination of Raymond Gruender to the Eighth Circuit.

Thus, despite the pessimism expressed by some last week, I continued working to conclude an arrangement between the White House and the Senate that would allow additional progress on judicial confirmations. Working with Senator Daschle, Senator Frist, Judge Gonzales and the White House chief of staff Andy Card, we were able to reach an agreement on Tuesday. I again commend our two leaders. I have been working with Senator Daschle for months, as well as with the White House, to find a way out of the impasse in judicial confirmations. Senator Frist and I have spoken at length about this, and he has been working on that, too. I was delighted to see the meeting of Senator Daschle, Senator Frist, and Mr. Card finally take place this week. Most importantly, I was pleased that the White House agreed to no more recess appointments of judges.

I think we have demonstrated our good faith. In the 17 months that the Democrats were in charge of the Senate, we confirmed 100 of President Bush's nominees to lifetime positions on the federal bench. And the Republicans, during the 23 months that they have been in charge of the Senate, have now confirmed another 74. With the consideration of the Gruender nomination today, that total reaches 75.

This is the 75th confirmation for 2003 and 2004, of the 108th Congress. That matches the total for the entire two-year 1995-1996 period in which Republicans controlled the 104th Congress and exceeds the total for the entire two-year 1999-2000 period in which Republicans controlled the 106th Congress. Of course in those years Senate Republicans were reviewing President Clinton's judicial nominees. Further, with 175 confirmations, we will have matched the total confirmation for the most recent 4-year Presidential term 1997-2000.

It is significant that this is the first circuit court nomination the Senate will have considered this Presidential election year. The last time a President ran for reelection was 1996. During that session, with the Republican majority controlling the Senate agenda not a single circuit court nominee was considered. Accordingly, when the Senate acts to confirm the first circuit court nominee this year, we will have bested the total for the entire 1996 session.

I am pleased that the Senate has received assurances from the White House that the President will not further abuse the recess appointment

power by making recess appointments during the remainder of his presidential term. It was the White House's refusal to reach a reasonable accommodation of the concerns of many Senators about the unilateral approach of the President's recess appointments to the federal courts that complicated our efforts to reach an agreement regarding votes on judicial nominees over the past few months. That is demonstrated by the prompt vote and confirmation of Judge Cooke Tuesday afternoon. I was pleased to be able to help facilitate the end of that impasse.

And now we are set to vote on another candidate, the nomination of Raymond Gruender to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. While some have mischaracterized the nominees included in this week's agreement as ``noncontroversial,'' they in fact include a number who will require debate and they will each require a roll call vote

Unfortunately, Mr. Gruender is another nominee whose record raises concerns, just as have the records of far too many of President Bush's judicial nominees. Mr. Gruender, though only 40 years old, has been a member of the Federalist Society since 1988 and has played a lead role in many national Republican campaigns. For the past two years, Mr. Gruender has served as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri. In this capacity, he has been a vocal defender of Attorney General John Ashcroft's aggressive and controversial tactics.

He has also been critical of a city that passed a resolution reaffirming the importance of civil liberties in the fight against terrorism. He claimed that the resolution, which aimed to protect freedom of speech, assembly, privacy and due process, is ``putting lives in jeopardy and increasing the chances for terrorists to be successful.'' Mr. Gruender stood by these statements and his criticisms of the resolution at his hearing.

Despite his activities applying the PATRIOT Act as a U.S. Attorney and his public pronouncements about its provisions, Mr. Gruender stated in his answers to my written questions that he has ``not formed or expressed any opinions with respect to the constitutionality of any provisions of the PATRIOT Act'' and would, if confirmed, protect each citizen's civil rights and civil liberties.

I do hope that, if confirmed, Mr. Gruender will be a person of his word. I hope he will be fair and open-minded, and listen to all arguments involved in such cases. I hope he would not seek to decide cases in accordance with his partisan or personal beliefs rather than in accordance with the law. I also must note that, while he was candid about some of his activities, Mr. Gruender failed to directly answer several questions that I asked him in writing after his hearing, questions that would enable me to fully evaluate his qualifications for a lifetime appointment on the federal bench.

Just as a nominee last year attempted to stonewall Committee Members by not answering questions in a forthright manner, so Mr. Gruender avoided answering some of my questions by claiming that he could not express his views on the issues without a complete factual record and the benefit of the ``deliberative process.'' For example, Mr. Gruender refused to express his opinion about Congress's power under the Commerce Clause, Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, or the 10th or 11th Amendments. This is a timid, evasive and useless response. And many other circuit court nominees of this President have answered the same questions.

Mr. Gruender does, however, have the support of both of his home- State Senators and has served both as prosecutor and a defense attorney.

I am hopeful that he will be open-minded on the bench and will act as he says he will, that he will follow the law and not seek out opportunities to overturn precedent or decide cases in accord with his political beliefs rather than his obligations as a judge. I also sincerely hope that Mr. Gruender will treat all those who appear before him with respect and courtesy and will not abuse the power and trust of his position.

For the last three and one-half years, I have urged President Bush to work with us. Our proceeding today on this nomination demonstrates our going the extra mile.

I would note that President Clinton's nomination of Bonnie Campbell to this court was blocked--by a secret Republican hold--from ever getting Committee or Senate consideration. By contrast, the Senate has already confirmed four of President Bush's nominees to this circuit:-- William Riley, Michael Melloy, and Lavenski Smith were confirmed while Democrats held the majority, and, last year, Steven Colloton was confirmed to this court, as well. Mr. Gruender makes the fifth.

With his confirmation, Republican appointees on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals will outnumber Democratic appointees by four to one. There will be eight active Republican-appointed judges and only two active Democratic-appointed judges. And there is one more vacancy on this court which President Bush intends to fill with another conservative nominee.

I would note for my friends on the other side of the aisle--who consistently rebuke the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as being ``too liberal'' because 60 percent of the judges are Democratic appointees-- that the scales are tipped much farther the other way on the Eighth Circuit. With Democratic cooperation in confirming five of President Bush's nominees to the Eighth Circuit, Republican appointees now occupy 80 percent of the authorized seats on that court.

I congratulate Mr. Gruender and his family on his confirmation today.

Mr. President, today, in addition to voting on the nomination of Raymond Gruender, we vote to confirm another circuit court nominee, Judge Franklin Van Antwerpen to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. A Federal District Court judge since he was appointed by President Reagan in 1987, Judge Van Antwerpen comes to the Senate floor strongly supported by the Senior Senator from Pennsylvania, who I know is eager to see him confirmed.

Today's confirmation will make the 76th judge confirmed this year alone and the 176th judicial nominee to be confirmed for this President. With 76 judicial confirmations in just a little more than 16 months, the Senate has now confirmed more Federal judges than were confirmed during the two full years of 1995 and 1996, when Republicans first controlled the Senate and President Clinton was in the White House. It also exceeds the 2-year total for the last 2 years of the Clinton administration, when Republicans held the Senate. In fact, with 176 total confirmations for President Bush in just 3\1/2\ years, the Senate has confirmed more lifetime appointees for this president than were allowed to be confirmed in President Clinton's entire second term, the most recent 4-year presidential term. We have already surpassed the number of judicial confirmations won by President Reagan in his entire first term in office.

The confirmation of Judge Van Antwerpen also marks the second circuit court nominee confirmed for President Bush this year, which is double the number of circuit court nominees confirmed in all of 1996, the last time a president was running for reelection and Republicans refused to allow a single circuit court nominee of President Clinton to be confirmed all year. Today we confirm the 32nd circuit court nominee of President Bush, which is more circuit court confirmations than in all 4 years of President Clinton's first term in the White House.

A look at the Federal judiciary in Pennsylvania demonstrates yet again that President Bush's nominees have been treated far better than President Clinton's and shows dramatically how Democrats have worked in a bipartisan way to fill vacancies, despite the fact that Republicans blocked more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees. With this confirmation, 16 of

President Bush's nominees to the Federal courts in Pennsylvania will have been confirmed, more than for any other State except California.

With this confirmation, President Bush's nominees will make up 16 of the 41 active Federal circuit and district court judges for Pennsylvania--that is more than one third of the Pennsylvania Federal bench. With the additional four Pennsylvania district court nominees pending on the floor and likely to be confirmed soon, nearly half of the district court seats in Pennsylvania will be held by President Bush's appointees. Republican appointees will outnumber Democratic appointees by nearly two to one.

This is in sharp contrast to the way vacancies in Pennsylvania were left unfilled during Republican control of the Senate when President Clinton was in the White House. Although Republicans now decry Democratic filibusters of a mere handful of the most extreme nominees, Republicans denied votes to nine district and one circuit court nominees of President Clinton in Pennsylvania alone. Despite the efforts and diligence of the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, to secure the confirmation of all of the judicial nominees from every part of his home State, there were ten nominees by President Clinton to Pennsylvania vacancies who never got a vote. Despite how well-qualified these nominees were, many of their nominations sat pending before the Senate for more than a year without being considered. Such obstruction provided President Bush with a significant opportunity to shape the bench according to his partisan and ideological goals.

Recent news articles in Pennsylvania have highlighted the way that President Bush has been able to reshape the Federal bench in Pennsylvania. For example, the Philadelphia Inquirer, on November 27, 2003, said that the significant number of vacancies on the Pennsylvania courts ``present Republicans with an opportunity to shape the judicial makeup of the court for years to come.''

Democratic support for the confirmation of Franklin Van Antwerpen is yet another example of our extraordinary cooperation despite an uncompromising White House and the record of how President Clinton's Pennsylvania nominees fared under Republican control in the Senate. In contrast to many of President Bush's nominees, Judge Van Antwerpen comes to us with a distinguished and widely acclaimed career on the bench--both on the State and Federal levels. He was rated unanimously well-qualified by the American Bar Association and has the respect of his peers on the bench and of the attorneys who appear before him. He is the kind of nominee this President and my Republican colleagues should be looking for as we fulfill our constitutional duty of appointing members to the Federal judiciary--an independent branch of the government.

I congratulate Judge Van Antwerpen and his family on his confirmation today.

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

Mr. President, the dedication of the long overdue World War II Memorial is a moment in time that we will always remember.

I am so pleased that many Vermont veterans from the WWII will be on hand for this solemn, and triumphant, occasion.

No monument--even one so grandly placed as this gleaming tribute in stone is, between the Washington and Lincoln Monuments--can fully capture the full enormity of the service and sacrifice of the 16 million soldiers, sailors, airmen and others who served in uniform during those 5 years of war and struggle. Yet with its marble expanse, majestic pillars, and carefully chiseled engravings, this memorial will forever stand as a symbol of the Nation's appreciation for those who served and for those who made the ultimate sacrifice.

World War II was truly an epic struggle. It was a struggle that would determine the very direction of humanity, whether militarism and Nazism would supplant freedom and democracy. Every American soldier understood the purpose and the stakes of that war. They unwaveringly answered the call to duty, they won the war, they returned home, and then the greatest generation soldiered on further to also win the peace.

We in Vermont often pride ourselves on our healthy skepticism of centralized government. Yet we are early and arduous in rallying to the Nation's defense in disproportionate numbers to our relatively small population, from the Civil War onward. In World War II nearly 50,000 men from the State of Vermont fought the axis powers. More than 1,200 Vermonters lost their lives in the war. At home and overseas, Vermont women also made great contributions to the war effort, and 1,400 of them served with our armed forces.

Today a new generation of veterans is being minted. I have had the honor of meeting many of the young men and women who are serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. These soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines tell me time and time again that they look over their shoulders to take pride and courage in the examples set by our World War II veterans, as well as our veterans from more recent wars.

On behalf of all Vermonters, as an American citizen, and as a member of one of several grateful generations, I welcome our proud veterans to Washington on the occasion of the dedication of the World War II Memorial. We thank you for all that you have done, and our Nation will forever honor your sacrifices.

We cannot thank you enough, but we can, and we will, always remember.

Mr. President, according to the Washington Post, a recent poll by the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, which is, for all intents and purposes, an entity of the U.S. Government, showed that 80 percent of the Iraqis surveyed reported a lack of confidence in the CPA and 82 percent disapprove of the U.S. and allied militaries in Iraq.

I mention this for two reasons.

First, I remember when, less than 2 months ago, much was made by administration officials and several Senators of a February poll which suggested that Iraqis strongly supported the U.S. occupation. They held it up as proof that our strategy was working, even if they could not explain what the strategy was.

To quote one of my friends on the other side of the aisle, who spoke on April 8:

[I] noticed the BBC/ABC poll results in Iraq, which are

fascinating. I only wish Americans were as upbeat about

America as Iraqis are about Iraq. If you watched U.S. TV

every day, you would think there was nothing but bad things

happening in Iraq . . . But, in fact, in the BBC/ABC poll,

which was taken from February 9th to February 28th, in answer

to the question, ``How are things going today, good or bad,

in Iraq?'' Overall, 70 percent said good, 29 percent said

bad. . . And in terms of the optimism factor, how they will

be a year from now, 71 percent of Iraqis thought things would

be better a year from now . . .

He concluded by saying that this encouraging news was thanks to the leadership of the President of the United States.

Whatever the accuracy of that February poll, the CPA's recent poll indicates that far more Iraqis today oppose what we are doing in Iraq. The CPA's poll also shows that more than half of Americans surveyed oppose the President's policy.

This latest poll also compels us to ask why so many of the people we sought to liberate, and did liberate from the brutality of Saddam, turned against us so quickly. And why so many Americans are questioning the President's decision to go to war.

There are many reasons, the genesis of which dates back to the President's fateful decision to shift gears from fighting al-Qaida, which had attacked us, to overthrowing Saddam Hussein, who had not attacked us and who apparently had no plan or ability to.

That decision, followed by a remarkable series of miscalculations and misguided policies, has enmeshed our troops in an ill-fated, costly war from which neither the President, nor anyone else in his Administration, appears to have the faintest idea of how to extricate ourselves.

Let's review the history.

After September 11, there was nearly universal support for retaliation against al-Qaida. There was widespread sympathy and support for the United States from around the world. But then the President, encouraged by a handful of Pentagon and White House officials, most notably the Vice President, who were fixated on Saddam Hussein, changed course. And what followed, I believe, has very possibly increased the risk of terrorism against Americans.

We remember when someone in the administration ``gave currency to a fraud,'' to quote George Will, by putting in the President's 2003 State of the Union speech that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa.

This administration repeatedly, insistently and unrelentingly justified pre-emptive war by insisting that Saddam Hussein not only had weapons of mass destruction but was hell-bent on using them against us and our allies.

Administration officials, led by Vice President Cheney, repeatedly tried to link Saddam Hussein to 9/11 in order to build public support for the war, though there never was any link--none.

Truth tellers in the administration--like General Shinseki and Lawrence Lindsay--were either ridiculed or hounded out of their jobs because they had the temerity to suggest realistic estimates for the number of soldiers and amount of money it would take to do the job right in Iraq.

Incredibly, there was no real plan, despite a year-long, $5 million study by the State Department, to deal with the widespread looting that greeted our soldiers once Saddam had fallen--doubling or tripling the cost of reconstruction, and leaving open the gates to stockpiles of weapons and ammunition that have been used with deadly results against our soldiers.

We remember President Bush flying onto the aircraft carrier and declaring ``Mission Accomplished'' when, in fact, the worst of it was ahead.

Two months later, the President taunted Iraqi resistance fighters to ``Bring It On!'' while our troops were still in harm's way and were fending off ambushes and roadside attacks every day and every night.

Some of our closest allies and friends, like Mexico and Canada, and even those countries Secretary Rumsfeld called ``Old Europe,'' were belittled and alienated because they disagreed with our strategy of pre-emptive war--countries whose diplomatic and intelligence and military support we so desperately need today.

That sorry chronology has brought us to where we are today. Each day that passes, more Iraqis seem to turn against us, threatening the mission and morale of our troops.

The latest episode in this misguided adventure is the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. It is tragic for many reasons, but none more so than the harm it has caused to the image of our Armed

Forces and to our Nation, particularly among Muslims, and the fact that it could so easily have been prevented.

The International Red Cross had warned U.S. officials about the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners last year, and nothing was done about it for months.

We also know that similarly cruel and degrading treatment of prisoners occurred at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. The New York Times first reported it last March. It described prisoners who had been kept naked in freezing cold cells, forced to stand for days with their arms upraised and chained to the ceiling, subjected to other humiliating and abusive treatment, and in at least two instances prisoners died in what were ruled homicides. We have since learned that many more detainees have died in U.S. custody in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Even before last June, when I first sought information about the abuses at Bagram, my attempts to seek information about the dehumanizing and, I believe, illegal treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo were ignored.

It is no secret that Guantanamo was chosen precisely because the Pentagon wanted it to be outside the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. They did not want to be subjected to the watchful eyes of attorneys who know the law. They did not want to be bothered with U.S. or international law. As it turns out, many of the prisoners at Guantanamo who had been drugged and shackled and hooded and denied access to lawyers, were released after it was determined, a year or two later, that they were innocent.

Now we hear that there are videos of the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, but, like Abu Ghraib, we only learned about it from the press. That is the only way we have learned about any of what is increasingly looking like a pattern of cruel and degrading treatment of terrorism suspects in U.S. military custody.

Top Pentagon officials continue to insist that there is no pattern; that we are dealing only with ``isolated incidents.'' We could debate when ``incidents'' become so pervasive that they are part of a ``pattern.'' One might think that similar types of abuses of prisoners in U.S. custody in Cuba, Afghanistan, and Iraq during approximately the same time period would suggest a pattern, but perhaps not to those who bear responsibility. The fact is, as the Washington Post so clearly stated on May 20, this was ``A Corrupted Culture.''

We have heard that U.S. military intelligence gave the orders. We have heard of attempts by military to block investigations by the International Red Cross. We have heard that FBI officers declined to be present during interrogations because of the harsh methods that were used. We have heard of complaints by former Iraqi and Afghan prisoners that were ignored. We have heard about investigations of alleged abuses that were cursory, at best. We have heard of instances when denials of misconduct by military officers were treated as proof that nothing bad happened, while those who alleged the abuse were never interviewed.

We have learned that self-serving and reassuring statements about respect for the law by officials here in Washington, including the President and the Pentagon's top lawyer, bore little resemblance to what was going on in the field.

The sadistic acts that have now been published on the front pages of every newspaper in the world as well as millions of television screens have endangered our soldiers and civilians abroad and threaten our national security and foreign policy interests abroad. The photographs will be used as recruiting posters for terrorists around the world. They depict an interrogation and detention system that is out of control. They have made a mockery of President Bush's statement a year ago that the United States will neither ``torture'' terrorist suspects, nor use ``cruel and unusual'' treatment to interrogate them, and they directly contradict the more detailed policy on interrogations outlined in a June 25, 2003, letter to me by Defense Department General Counsel William Haynes.

It is apparent that, when it comes to Iraq, this administration is disinterested, at best, in the views of anyone who is either a member of the minority, or who, Republican or Democrat, dares to utter words of caution or criticism. But there are some basic truths that cannot be ignored.

First, atrocities occur in all wars. Invariably, there are incidents--often many incidents--in which excessive force is used, civilians are brutalized, prisoners of war are tortured and summarily executed. There has never been a war without such heinous crimes.

Second, our Armed Forces are the finest in the world. The vast majority of our troops have conducted themselves professionally and courageously, in accordance with the laws of war. But even Americans have at times used excessive force and violated the rights of civilians or prisoners. There were instances of this long before Abu Ghraib prison.

And it is precisely because these atrocities are predictable in any war that the Geneva Conventions and the Torture Convention exist. The United States was instrumental in the drafting and adoption of these conventions, whose purpose is to prevent atrocities against civilians and the mistreatment of prisoners of war, including Americans.

We should also recognize that not only were the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison not isolated incidents; similar practices have recently been documented in many prisons in the United States. We have seen the same types of humiliating and sexually degrading treatment, the assaults by prison guards, the misuse of dogs against defenseless prisoners, and the same failure to hold accountable those in positions of responsibility.

The President reaffirmed, in the midst of the Abu Ghraib scandal, that the United States is a nation of laws, and that those responsible for the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners will be punished. This, of course, must happen. But it does not obscure the glaring hypocrisy of this administration.

On the one hand, last March, referring to the capture of U.S. soldiers by Iraqi forces, President Bush said, ``We expect them to be treated humanely, just like we'll treat any prisoner of theirs that we capture humanely. If not, the people who mistreat the prisoners will be treated as war criminals.'' On the other hand, there is the White House Counsel, who called the Geneva Conventions ``quaint'' and ``obsolete,'' and there is the pattern of abuses themselves and the way the administration ignored inquiries and warnings for months.

The White House set the tone, and the consequences were disastrous. According to the International Red Cross, 70 to 90 percent of the Iraq prisoners arrested--who were unquestionably entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions--were later determined to have been detained by mistake. That is appalling, but not so appalling that the Administration did anything about it.

The Red Cross reported that soldiers carrying out arrests ``usually entered after dark, breaking down doors, waking up residents roughly, yelling orders. Sometimes they arrested all adult males present in a house, including the elderly, handicapped or sick people. Treatment often included pushing people around, insulting, taking aim with rifles, punching and kicking and striking with rifles.''

Is it any wonder that so many Iraqis want us to leave? This is not what we expect of the conduct of our military operations. The Geneva Conventions have the force of law, and as a nation whose Bill of Rights was the model for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that holds itself out as a force for human rights and human dignity around the world, we should set the example. Any person taken into U.S. custody should be treated, at a minimum, consistent with the Geneva Conventions and in accordance with the Torture Convention.

This fiasco is part and parcel of the increasing insecurity in Iraq and the dangers facing our troops from a hostile population that has resulted from such miserably poor planning that so many people warned of.

It has claimed the lives and limbs of hundreds of Americans and of thousands of Iraqis.

It has caused deep divisions between ourselves and the Iraqi people and Muslims around the world.

It has damaged our image as a nation that stands for respect for human rights.

It represents a colossal failure of leadership.

As I and so many others have said for months, we cannot succeed in Iraq by ourselves. Not when the rationale for going to war has been exposed for the pretext that it was. Not when we are widely perceived as occupiers. Not when photographs of uniformed Americans abusing naked Iraqi prisoners have become the symbol of that occupation.

We saw, with the horrifying murder of Nicolas Berg by al-Qaida, the incredible depravity and determination of the enemy we face. Only weeks ago there were images of dismembered American corpses hanging from a bridge.

We are united in our revulsion, and in our commitment to bring to justice those responsible for such despicable acts. The question is how to do it effectively.

Last October 13th, in a memo entitled ``Global War on Terrorism,'' Secretary Rumsfeld asked, ``Are we capturing, killing or dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?''

Since then, he and the President have called Iraq the main front in the war against terrorism. It certainly did not used to be. Last week, I asked Secretary Rumsfeld how he would answer the question he posed last October--whether we are winning the fight against terrorism. He said he didn't know.

That speaks volumes. We are spending more than $1 billion a week in Iraq, and the Secretary doesn't know if we are winning.

President Bush's Iraq policy has been discredited not only among the world's Muslims, but among most of our friends and allies. Not only have we lost the moral authority that is necessary to defeat terrorism, we have been unable to even secure the country we liberated. As I have said repeatedly, we need a radical change of course, and that decision can be made only by the President of the United States.

The President has reaffirmed his steadfast support for the Secretary of Defense, and at this point it appears that Secretary Rumsfeld has no plans to leave. But many are seriously questioning whether we can succeed in Iraq, or against terrorism for that matter, so long as he and General Myers, and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, who are so closely identified with this discredited policy, remain at the helm.

At the same time, the President needs to articulate credible, achievable goals in Iraq, beyond ``staying the course'' and the usual cliches about remaking the Middle East.

We and the rest of the world need to know what those goals are and how he plans to achieve them, to whom we are going to turn over sovereignty that can effectively govern, how the President plans to secure the support needed from other nations to effectively address the deteriorating security situation, how long he expects our troops to stay in Iraq, and how many more billions of dollars it may cost.

Unless the President can answer these questions, more and more Americans will question how much longer we can ask our troops to risk life and limb in Iraq and the taxpayers to continue to pay for a policy that is not working.

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