Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today, with my respected colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, the Farm-to- Cafeteria Projects Act of 2003. This important bipartisan proposal will support grassroots efforts all across our Nation to bring school cafeterias and local farms together.

It is amazing how many kids do not know where the food that they eat comes from. It is also amazing how far some farm products travel to get to the cafeteria table. The Farm-to-Cafeteria Projects Act of 2003 will establish a U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, grant program to help schools connect children with local farms by bringing fresh local foods to their cafeterias and by implementing hands-on nutrition education programs.

Communities all across our Nation are beginning to explore the concept of linking farms and cafeterias. In my home State of Vermont, from rural towns like Jay and Westfield to the city of Burlington, schools have experimented with how they can integrate the daily service of school meals with classroom learning and local agriculture. And as more schools create these connections, more and more want to learn how they too can start a program. Oftentimes these are very small schools, which do not have the staff or money to kick off a project on their own. With just a little money and some technical assistance, these schools can create a program that teaches kids about good nutrition, shows them the importance of agriculture, and supports local farms by keeping food dollars within the community. In introducing The Farm-to- Cafeteria Projects Act of 2003, Senator Specter and I seek to provide these communities with the assistance they need to get such school and farm partnerships off the ground. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this exciting initiative, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today, with my respected colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, the Farm-to- Cafeteria Projects Act of 2003. This important bipartisan proposal will support grassroots efforts all across our Nation to bring school cafeterias and local farms together.

It is amazing how many kids do not know where the food that they eat comes from. It is also amazing how far some farm products travel to get to the cafeteria table. The Farm-to-Cafeteria Projects Act of 2003 will establish a U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, grant program to help schools connect children with local farms by bringing fresh local foods to their cafeterias and by implementing hands-on nutrition education programs.

Communities all across our Nation are beginning to explore the concept of linking farms and cafeterias. In my home State of Vermont, from rural towns like Jay and Westfield to the city of Burlington, schools have experimented with how they can integrate the daily service of school meals with classroom learning and local agriculture. And as more schools create these connections, more and more want to learn how they too can start a program. Oftentimes these are very small schools, which do not have the staff or money to kick off a project on their own. With just a little money and some technical assistance, these schools can create a program that teaches kids about good nutrition, shows them the importance of agriculture, and supports local farms by keeping food dollars within the community. In introducing The Farm-to- Cafeteria Projects Act of 2003, Senator Specter and I seek to provide these communities with the assistance they need to get such school and farm partnerships off the ground. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this exciting initiative, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am an original cosponsor of this amendment, and I strongly support it. I will not take a great deal of time. But Senator Byrd and Senator Kennedy, two senior Members of the Senate--actually the two most senior Members of this Senate--have been such resolute voices of reason and caution concerning our actions in Iraq. Senator Kennedy and Senator Byrd have done a thorough job of explaining what this amendment does and why it is important.

There is no secret that I did not support the resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq. I felt it gave the President authority that should be reserved to the Congress. It was used by the President to justify abandoning the United Nations prematurely, rejecting the recommendation of our allies, and launching a unilateral preemptive attack against Iraq with dubious justification.

Since then, almost everything the White House and the Pentagon have said about Iraq has turned out to be wrong. The justification for the war, that Saddam Hussein was on the verge of having nuclear weapons, has evaporated. There was no link between Saddam Hussein and the September 11 attacks despite what the President said--until recently. While the Vice President continues to try to make the connection, at least the President has finally said there is no connection.

Is Saddam Hussein a bad man? Of course, one of the most evil people I have ever read or heard about. Amazingly enough, it is the same Saddam Hussein we strongly supported in many ways in previous administrations. Is he a tyrant? Certainly. Did he carry out torture and genocide? Of course he did. He gassed the Kurds. The then Reagan-Bush administration continued to send military aid. Is he a bad man? Yes, we all agree on that.

Did he have nuclear weapons? Of course not. Was he an imminent threat to the United States? Of course not. Was he worse than some of dictators we actively support around the world today? That is an open question.

Now we have a different question, as the senior Senator from West Virginia and the senior Senator from Massachusetts and others have pointed out: The cost to the United States taxpayers in rebuilding Iraq. We were told that would be paid with Iraqi oil revenues. But suddenly that cost has skyrocketed. Our troops, we were told, would be greeted as liberators. They are under constant attack and threat of attack.

I remember when the administration came before the Congress and said the costs of rebuilding would be under a couple billion dollars. They assured Members, assured the Appropriations Committee of that. They had to know they were not being truthful.

Look at what has happened. Hundreds of our service personnel have been killed, many more have been wounded, something the administration prefers not to talk about. The wounded are brought back after midnight, making sure the press does not see the planes coming in with the wounded. They were not talking about wounded. These are not a broken wrist or scratched leg. These are terrible wounds--lost limbs, lost eyesight, lifetime disabilities. I think of the soldier who fought bravely for the United States who is back in Walter Reed now finally getting his citizenship. He raised his right hand to take the oath. That was the only limb he could raise. He lost his other arm and both legs, like our former colleague, Senator Cleland, in Vietnam. These are terrible wounds.

We have lost more of our military since the President said the mission was accomplished, the war is over, than we did before. We have lost more of our soldiers since the President said: Bring it on. Unfortunately, they must have listened because they brought it on and more Americans have died since then than died before.

Having said that, I am not one of those who say everything in Iraq is a failure. I do not say that at all. We are far from that. We are making progress in Iraq on many fronts. But the situation is dangerous. We are there virtually alone. Contributions of troops and money from other nations have been a pittance. But who can blame them? We ignored the words of caution from our allies. We dismissed our allies as irrelevant. We called them ``Old Europe,'' and we refused to give them any meaningful say in the political development or economic reconstruction of Iraq. Now, having insulted them, having ignored them, having not consulted them, having brushed them aside as irrelevant, we expect them to jump behind a policy they opposed when they find that so many of the things we said to justify our policy turned out not to be true? It is not surprising they are not hurrying to get in line behind us.

This amendment of Senator Byrd, Senator Kennedy, myself and others, acknowledges what is obvious to everyone except perhaps those in the White House who are so convinced of their own version of reality that they only see what they want to see. We need help. We need the active involvement of the international community. In order to get that active involvement of the international community, we need to give these nations a bigger say in rebuilding Iraq and doing so to take the targets off the backs of our soldiers and defray the financial cost to the American taxpayers. We cannot take the attitude that uncle knows best and only uncle knows. We want others to help us if we want to be in a position to take our brave young men and women out of the line of fire.

This is essential, not only for the success of our policy in Iraq but for our ability to work constructively with other nations in all the other fights we have in fighting terrorism, in combating poverty, in stopping disease, in protecting the environment, in dealing with so many other global problems. We are the wealthiest, most powerful nation history has ever known. It is almost inconceivable--even when I was born, 1940--that we would have any nation as powerful as we are. But we have responsibilities around the world that go with that. It is not just Iraq.

There is an AIDS epidemic; there are contagious diseases, including ebola; there is ignorance, poverty, environmental damage. All of these things need U.S. leadership--not leadership arrogance but U.S. leadership. The American people are good people. The American people have the heart and the will to do what is best.

The American people do not need to have leaders who show arrogance. That is not the American way. I think of the young people who go in the Peace Corps; I think of the young missionaries who go abroad; I think of the teachers, of the older retired people going to other parts of the world to help out. They do not go with arrogance, they do not go with simplistic answers; they go with humbleness, respect, and love.

This amendment allows half the Iraq reconstruction funds, $10.1 billion, more than can be spent next year, to be made available immediately. In other words, this amendment would get that money out the door with no strings attached. Putting this in perspective, $10.1 billion is equal to more than half the amount of foreign aid we give to

the rest of the world, and we will give that amount of money to one country immediately. The $10.1 billion includes $5.1 billion for security, public safety, border enforcement, and justice activities. The balance of the $10 billion will be released after April 1, 2004, if the President certifies that the United Nations adopted a new resolution authorizing a multinational military force of the United States command and a central role for the U.N. in the political and economic development of Iraq, but the Congress would have to vote to release the balance of the funds.

Over a quarter of a century ago, I went on the Appropriations Committee because I believed very strongly--and I don't have to tell the senior Senator from West Virginia who has forgotten more about this than all the rest of us would know--I believe very strongly the Congress has the power of the purse. It is one of those wonderful, brilliant acts done by our Founders to have these checks and balances-- our judiciary, executive, our Congress. It has served us in good stead.

Has the Congress always been right? Of course not. Has the executive or judiciary always been right? No. But generally it stays in balance and it works very well. The big mistake would be if we just gave it away, if we said that the American people do not have a voice so we would have to vote to release the balance of these funds.

This is extremely generous. But the reason I mentioned the power of the purse is that we have a duty to protect the taxpayers' money.

In this Senate, there are only 100 of us who have the privilege to serve--and it is a privilege--at any given time. We have 270 million Americans. We have a responsibility--a responsibility--not just to Americans from Vermont or West Virginia or anywhere else but to all Americans. It is their money.

Now, none of us could predict what is going to happen in Iraq between now and April first. It makes no sense to bundle up this $21 billion and toss it out the door, without ever asking questions--whether the funds are being used wisely, whether other nations are contributing, and whether it makes sense to release another $10 billion.

It is absurd. It is totally unnecessary. It is not only absurd, it is unnecessary. This is the thing I cannot understand: Why are we rushing pell-mell to give away $21 billion lock, stock, and barrel, all at once? Every one of the administration's own people say they cannot spend it. They want it, but they cannot spend it. It is like ``give me, give me, give me, and I will make up my mind when I want to spend it.'' I would hate to run my household finances that way.

We should not run the Nation's finances that way. It is not the way it was done with the Marshall plan. Everyone comes up here from the administration and talks about the Marshall plan, the Marshall plan, the Marshall plan. I wish one of them would pick up a history book and read about the Marshall plan. The way they describe it, I don't think they could even spell it.

There was far more detailed justification for the Marshall plan, far more opportunity for review, far more oversight. Let's learn from history, especially if we are going to claim to repeat it.

I am tired of historical sloganeering by people who obviously have no idea what the heck they are talking about. For the Marshall plan, we had hundreds of witnesses. That was several years after the end of World War II. We had special bipartisan committees that really worked at overseeing that plan.

When I first came to the Senate, I talked to some of the Members who had been here at that time. They were watching what was going on. They knew what was going on. And it was not a blank check. It was not a blank check. It was, however, one thing: We worked with other countries. We led the effort, of course. We worked with other countries.

I think it is long past time that we should reach out to our friends and allies, not with this fig-leaf resolution being discussed at the U.N. this week--and that is all it is; it is a PR fig leaf--but in a way that builds a genuine coalition that is no longer a unilateral policy.

I want to be fair. The U.N. resolution to be voted on today is welcome. It sets the stage. That is what it does. It is a stage-setting piece for what should have been months ago, by recognizing the key role that other nations can and should play in Iraq.

It would authorize a multinational military force. It would encourage other nations to participate and make contributions to the force and to the costs of reconstruction in Iraq.

It also makes clear that the Coalition Provisional Authority is temporary. That is something on which I believe all Members of the Senate, Republican and Democrat alike, would agree. It has to be temporary.

So it is a step in the right direction, but it is basically a statement of good intentions. There is nothing wrong with good intentions, but I think some of us who have been here for a few years would like more than just good intentions. We have no idea how it is going to be interpreted by the White House, which has resisted meaningful input from other nations, nor how it is going to be implemented.

Will the multinational force be anything more than a fig leaf for an indefinite U.S. military operation involving more than 100,000 troops, as it is today--100,000 American troops over there facing the danger of being killed every single day? Will other nations contribute or will U.S. taxpayers continue to shoulder 99 percent of the cost?

Mr. President, save me the stories I hear from the administration about 30 countries, 40 countries joining us. I think there is one country that has sent over two people. Of course, we had to pay their way. Others were willing to send a few thousand dollars. But as ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, I know we are going to have to pay more than that in foreign aid they all want. I do not want fig leaves. I do not want rhetoric. I want reality.

Right now, the reality is, we are paying 99 percent of the cost. Is the administration going to give us a detailed plan, including timetables and cost? How about an exit strategy for when our troops will come home? That is what I would like to know. We do not know. We do not know what is going to come out of that.

It is good to have, at least, a resolution that says nice things. It does not do an awful lot, but it says a lot of nice things at the United Nations. But I am not a member of the United Nations. I am not a delegate to the United Nations. I am the senior Senator from the State of Vermont. I am here to speak on behalf of the people of the United States in the U.S. Senate. That is my role. I have one vote here out of 100. I take that very seriously.

This amendment is extremely important. It builds on the U.N. resolution. It requires tangible results, not just good intentions. If the U.N. resolution accomplishes what it says, the President should have no difficulty making the certifications called for in this amendment.

We need to know if the U.N. resolution represents the ``internationalization'' of policy long overdue or if it is nothing more than political cover to maintain the status quo, to continue along as we are today--alone, with our troops under fire and U.S. taxpayers paying through the nose.

And then we need to vote on whether to release the remaining $10 billion. There is no reason--there is none--there is not one word in all the testimony before the other body or before ours that says they need this other $10 billion right now--not one word that says we should not have another chance to review this policy and vote again in 6 months. That is the responsible thing to do. Again, they cannot spend the money now.

So our amendment steers a middle ground. It releases half of the aid up front, but it tells the administration we want a multilateral approach. We want other nations involved, and not just nations that can only contribute enough troops for a small town police force or provide a handful of secondhand jeeps.

I admire the political will of some of these small countries in sending people over. From my own State of Vermont, we have sheriffs departments that are bigger than some of the forces they are sending. That does not detract from their political will in doing it. It is a nice symbol, but let's not fool anybody.

I think the administration takes a strange view of Americans if they think we are going to be fooled by this.

Virtually every American knows who is paying the bill. We Americans are.

So this amendment is in Iraq's interest. It is certainly in the interest of the American taxpayers, something we should be concerned about.

I am very proud of my friend, the senior Senator from West Virginia, for offering the amendment. I have had the privilege of serving with him for 29 years. I have learned as much from him as any one in the hundreds of people I have served with in this body, right from the very first day I met him as a young Senator elect, as a former prosecutor.

I think of my good friend from New England, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, a man I first met back when he was a brand-new Senator and I was a seminew prosecutor in Vermont.

I think what the two Senators have done is go back to history and back to reality and set a good course. Our country will actually be stronger and better and, ironically, the Iraq reconstruction will be done better, if we follow their course.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the administration's justification materials for the $20 billion in reconstruction funds for Iraq, which we received just last week, contains broad categories of projects with no supporting details about how the administration arrived at the expected costs of those projects.

For example, they want $400 million for two prisons, at a cost of $50,000 per bed. How is that possible? Are we going to ship the cement over there?

They budget $150 million for a tertiary care, pediatric hospital, with no details about how they arrived at that number and no explanation of why this is the best use of these funds in Iraq, versus far less costly public health clinics and immunization programs.

They want to spend $100 million for seven housing communities. Housing is short in Iraq, but should American taxpayers really pay $100 million?

We simply do not have nearly enough information to justify these exorbitant expenditures.

My amendment says that before funds are allocated for capital projects like prisons, hospitals, railroads, and government buildings, the Coalition Provisional Authority must submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations describing the estimated cost on which the request for funds for the project is based.

The amendment also says, that in order to control costs, to the maximum extent practicable, Iraqis with the necessary qualifications should be consulted and utilized in the design and implementation of reconstruction projects. We want to employ Iraqis, not $500 and hour consultants.

I don't doubt that Iraq needs new prisons, government buildings, and housing, although I am not yet convinced the American people should pay for these things. This amendment does not prevent any project from being built.

But we hear about spending millions of dollars in Iraq for things-- from vehicles to cement factories--that with a minimum of frugality could be bought or built for a fraction of the price.

Before we spend 5 or 10 times more than we need to, let's find out what we are paying for to be sure it is the best use of the money.

That is what my amendment does. It requires the administration to give us the information that justifies these costs, before the funds are allocated. The American people deserve to know what their money is paying for, before it is spent.

I thank the managers for agreeing to this amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, may we have order.

The Senator from Texas is entitled to be heard. If we could have order, Mr. President.

Mr. President, will the Senator from Alaska yield?

Mr. President, I will be very brief. As I look around, there is only one person on this floor who has served longer than I have and that is the Senator from Alaska. I know the difficulties--both he and I have gone back and forth, sometimes one is chairman, sometimes the other is, on different committees--how difficult it is to keep a major bill going through. I understand his concern in doing it.

The senior Senator from Nevada has done the job of being whip for our side better than anybody I have ever known who served here. There is a great deal of respect for his integrity on both sides of the aisle, as there is for the senior Senator from Alaska. I know both have been trying to work this out. I hope we would just continue that way. It is not an easy process. There are differences of opinion on a number of these amendments. But I know both the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Nevada are two of the finest people I have served with, and I hope we would allow the two of them to work, as they do so very well, and Members on both sides of the aisle would work with them and allow them to work out the schedule.

The Senator from Vermont is perfectly satisfied with that kind of arrangement.

This amendment addresses the humanitarian crisis in Liberia. This is a bipartisan amendment, supported by Senators Chafee, Coleman, Biden, Lieberman, Feingold, Reed, Lautenberg, and Landrieu.

Anyone who has read a newspaper or watched CNN over the past couple of months knows about the tremendous suffering in Liberia today.

Three-quarters of Liberians do not have access to safe drinking water.

Three-quarters are living in poverty.

Three-quarters do not have access to acceptable sanitation.

Eighty-five percent of Liberians are unemployed.

These numbers, provided by the U.N. are absolutely appalling. To me, this is more than enough reason to act.

We have deep historical ties to its people. Presidents James Monroe and Andrew Jackson, along with some of the most notable Senators ever to serve in this body, Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, helped create the nation of Liberia. Liberia's flag is nearly identical to our own.

We have heard urgent pleas from the Liberian people for the U.S. to help.

Archbishop Michael Francis of Monrovia, wrote a letter in support of this amendment. He wrote:

[W]e are at a critical juncture where an intervention by

the United States, renewing its leadership role, will greatly

help to ensure the stabilization of Liberia. It is for this

reason that your amendment to include $200 million in the FY

2004 Supplemental Appropriations bill to address relief and

reconstruction needs in Liberia is timely and must be

supported by the Senate body.

I ask unanimous consent that his letter be printed in the Record.

Archbishop Francis is said to be the only man in Liberia that Charles Taylor feared. This is because of the archbishop's tireless criticism of Charles Taylor and his brutal regime.

If we don't move decisively to help solidify the fragile peace in Liberia, fighting could easily resume and spread throughout the region. Guess who the world will look to help solve the crisis?

The United States. More lives will have been lost, more time will have been wasted and it will be more difficult and expensive to act.

Mr. President, this amendment gives the Senate a chance to take decisive action to address the crisis in Liberia. This amendment provides $200 million in badly needed aid, and it allows the administration to determine the best way to spend these funds.

How did we arrive at this figure? Two hundred million dollars is what the Bush administration says we should spend to respond to this crisis. On October 2, Assistant Secretary of State for Africa Walter Kansteiner told the House International Relations Committee that $200 million is what the U.S. should contribute to Liberia.

In other words, this is the administration's own number.

This amendment is fully offset--it does not add one dime to the total amount of the supplemental. It also allows the administration to use these funds for virtually any purpose: humanitarian, reconstruction, or security assistance.

We have an $87 billion bill before the Senate. But there is no money in this bill designated for Liberia.

We are already involved in Liberia. The United States worked to get rid of a despicable dictator who is wanted for war crimes. We sent the Marines to Liberia. The United States has deep historical ties to Liberia. We should do the job right--not just stick a band-aid on the problem and hope it goes away.

Mr. President, it is up to Congress to show leadership on this issue.

The House has acted. It has included $100 million of international disaster assistance for Liberia and Sudan. The Senate should build on this effort. This amendment does that.

There should be no question. We should join together and pass this bipartisan amendment and help the people of Liberia. That is why I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I withhold the quorum call.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend, the senior Senator from South Dakota and Democratic leader. I thank him for his concern and his work on this issue.

Two years have passed since several anthrax letters were sent to a few journalists and, obviously, to public officials, killing inadvertent victims. These are victims whose only sin, apparently, was doing their jobs, and these attacks have left several other people sick and out of work.

The Senate and all who work here--the Senate family--are still adjusting to the aftermath of these attacks 2 years later. We see it in new layers of security. We see it in new mail-handling procedures in which mail to Capitol Hill now is screened and irradiated before it is delivered.

The U.S. Postal Service has had to develop and implement new safety measures to protect its customers and its workers. Meanwhile, nearly two dozen of our fellow Americans who merely came into contact with these anthrax-laden letters have become the forgotten victims of terror. Some have suffered poor health, and some have not been able to return to work.

I am pleased to join with Senator Daschle and my other good friends, Senators Lautenberg, Nelson of Florida, Feingold, Corzine, Mikulski, Sarbanes, and Clinton, to introduce the Anthrax Victims Fund Fairness Act of 2003. This will allow these forgotten victims of terror and their families to seek help through the September 11 Victims Compensation Fund.

They need this help to pay for medical expenses and to provide for themselves and their families if they have been unable to return to work. They are our fellow citizens, and they were unwittingly on the front lines when our new, shadowy struggle against terrorism began.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, we learned that the United States was not impervious to acts of terrorism of the kinds that have rained death and destruction on other societies far away. The attacks shocked the world and left the American people with the terrible knowledge that we could once again become victims, targets of terrorists at any time.

Only a few days after September 11, our worst fears were confirmed. Between September 22 and November 14, nearly two dozen Americans from five States and the District of Columbia became casualties of a sinister bioterrorism attack. Twenty-two Americans ranging in age from 7 months to 94 years were stricken in these attacks of anthrax. It is a rare disease that had only afflicted a handful of Americans in the last century. We would ultimately learn that 11 people had been infected with cutaneous or skin anthrax, and 11 contracted the more serious form of the disease called inhalation or pulmonary anthrax. Five of our fellow Americans died from these attacks.

The victims of the anthrax attacks vary in gender, race, religion, age, economic status, and locale. But they all have one thing in common: Everyone suffered. The targets were members of the news media, and two Members of the Senate, myself and Senator Daschle, but the victims--not the targets, but the victims--who suffered the most were employees of the U.S. Postal Service, the Department of State, news organizations, the Senate, and the aides, the children, and the senior citizens whose mail came in contact with the anthrax-laden letters.

In the fall of 2001, I worked with Speaker Hastert, Senator Daschle, Senator Lott, Congressman Gephardt, Senators Hatch, Kohl, DeWine, Schumer, and Clinton to establish the September 11 Victims Compensation Fund of 2001. This fund ensured that victims of the September 11 attacks would be eligible for compensation for the horrific losses they suffered. After extensive negotiations with the Bush administration, we established the September 11 fund to provide victims an alternative to what would have been a lengthy battle in court.

Under the stewardship of Ken Feinberg, the Special Master of the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund, and with the supervision of the Department of Justice, more than 1,000 of the 3,016 families of those who died in the September 11 attacks and more than 1,000 of the unknown number who were injured have filed claims.

The fund, which has no cap, had paid out $633 million by September 10, 2003, with an average award of about $1.6 million for death claims. It is a dignified way of doing it.

As we reach the 2-year anniversary of the anthrax attacks, Congress should do the same for those whose lives were harmed by these acts of bioterrorism

as we did for the victims of September 11. While we have taken significant steps to compensate the victims of the September 11 attacks and their families, no such action has been taken on behalf of the anthrax victims. Our legislation would remedy this.

Our bill would extend the deadline for filing claims with the fund by a year and expand the eligibility to include laboratory-confirmed anthrax tests.

As we reach the two-year anniversary of the anthrax attacks, Congress should do the same for those whose lives were harmed by these acts of bioterrorism as it did for the victims of September 11, 2001. While we have taken significant steps to compensate the victims of the September 11 attacks and their families, no such action has been taken on behalf of the anthrax victims. Our legislation would remedy this.

Our bill would extend the deadline for filing claims with the fund by 1-year and expand the eligibility to include laboratory-confirmed anthrax cases.

The Centers for Disease Control, CDC, have confirmed 18 anthrax infections, and an additional four are considered to have been confirmed through other methods. Applicants would be subject to the same criteria and restrictions as were set for the September 11 victims. Eligible individuals who choose to file claims would then be considered by the Special Master who would make a final determination on level of compensation within 120 days of receiving the claim. Compensation will be targeted to help the neediest victims and their families. Any life insurance, death benefit, or other Government payment previously received by victims and their families would be taken into account, and filing a claim would preclude other civil remedies.

Yesterday marked the 2-year anniversary of the opening of the letter that spread anthrax throughout the Hart Senate Office Building, exposing 31 Senate employees to a highly potent and aerosolized form of anthrax and shutting down the Dirksen Senate Office Building for 2 weeks, the Hart Senate Office Building for 3 months and briefly closing the United States Capitol, the symbol of democracy. Our staffs were fortunate to receive excellent care and guidance from the Sergeant at Arms, the CDC, the attending physician, his dedicated staff of men and women and the Environmental Protection Agency, and none of the employees of the Senate were ultimately infected. Those days are indelibly etched in our memories.

To this day--and this is the first time I have ever spoken on the floor about the anthrax attack. I have to be honest, it is something that has been on my mind, on the mind of my wife, our children, our families, ever since that day.

Senator Daschle and I do not know what motivates somebody to target us and to endanger our staffs and so many others. Senator Daschle and I were the targets of the Senate letters, but we were not stricken with anthrax, and we have made very clear that we would not be covered by the terms of this legislation.

We will never know why we were singled out, but we do know what happened to people who were totally innocent. The letters were not addressed to them as they were to us.

Eighteen of the victims were not as fortunate as were most of us in the Senate family. While some did recover after receiving antibiotics, others have had their lives changed forever. Some are stricken with ailments, such as post-traumatic stress, depression and fatigue. They continue to suffer from the after-effects of the disease.

One postal worker who was infected with anthrax filed a $100 million suit against the U.S. Postal Service in January 2003. He did not want to have to take his case to court, but he says he felt he had to after repeated attempts to receive compensation and assistance in treating his illness. Last month, on September 24, the widow of the first anthrax victim in Florida filed lawsuits seeking more than $50 million and alleging that insufficient security at the Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, MD, and negligent actions by companies with military contracts, caused her husband's death. This bill would help these and other victims without forcing them to take their cases to the legal system.

The perpetrator or perpetrators of these acts of terrorism remain at large. I have no idea who directed these letters to Senator Daschle and myself. The F.B.I. continues its search. These victims cannot wait until the search is over. They deserve help now and we owe it to them to provide it.

Yesterday I joined with the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, both Senators from New York, and with others in introducing separate legislation to extend and broaden the fund's coverage to cover the victims of the 1993 World Trade Center attacks, the 1998 East African embassy attacks and the 2000 U.S.S. Cole attacks. I applaud Senator Specter for his leadership in this area. All Americans who have been victimized by acts of terrorism deserve our sympathy, our respect and our support.

Our hearts went out to the victims of these acts of terrorism and to their loved ones. Now they also need our help, and it is my hope that we will do the right thing by these victims of terrorism.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend, the senior Senator from South Dakota and Democratic leader. I thank him for his concern and his work on this issue.

Two years have passed since several anthrax letters were sent to a few journalists and, obviously, to public officials, killing inadvertent victims. These are victims whose only sin, apparently, was doing their jobs, and these attacks have left several other people sick and out of work.

The Senate and all who work here--the Senate family--are still adjusting to the aftermath of these attacks 2 years later. We see it in new layers of security. We see it in new mail-handling procedures in which mail to Capitol Hill now is screened and irradiated before it is delivered.

The U.S. Postal Service has had to develop and implement new safety measures to protect its customers and its workers. Meanwhile, nearly two dozen of our fellow Americans who merely came into contact with these anthrax-laden letters have become the forgotten victims of terror. Some have suffered poor health, and some have not been able to return to work.

I am pleased to join with Senator Daschle and my other good friends, Senators Lautenberg, Nelson of Florida, Feingold, Corzine, Mikulski, Sarbanes, and Clinton, to introduce the Anthrax Victims Fund Fairness Act of 2003. This will allow these forgotten victims of terror and their families to seek help through the September 11 Victims Compensation Fund.

They need this help to pay for medical expenses and to provide for themselves and their families if they have been unable to return to work. They are our fellow citizens, and they were unwittingly on the front lines when our new, shadowy struggle against terrorism began.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, we learned that the United States was not impervious to acts of terrorism of the kinds that have rained death and destruction on other societies far away. The attacks shocked the world and left the American people with the terrible knowledge that we could once again become victims, targets of terrorists at any time.

Only a few days after September 11, our worst fears were confirmed. Between September 22 and November 14, nearly two dozen Americans from five States and the District of Columbia became casualties of a sinister bioterrorism attack. Twenty-two Americans ranging in age from 7 months to 94 years were stricken in these attacks of anthrax. It is a rare disease that had only afflicted a handful of Americans in the last century. We would ultimately learn that 11 people had been infected with cutaneous or skin anthrax, and 11 contracted the more serious form of the disease called inhalation or pulmonary anthrax. Five of our fellow Americans died from these attacks.

The victims of the anthrax attacks vary in gender, race, religion, age, economic status, and locale. But they all have one thing in common: Everyone suffered. The targets were members of the news media, and two Members of the Senate, myself and Senator Daschle, but the victims--not the targets, but the victims--who suffered the most were employees of the U.S. Postal Service, the Department of State, news organizations, the Senate, and the aides, the children, and the senior citizens whose mail came in contact with the anthrax-laden letters.

In the fall of 2001, I worked with Speaker Hastert, Senator Daschle, Senator Lott, Congressman Gephardt, Senators Hatch, Kohl, DeWine, Schumer, and Clinton to establish the September 11 Victims Compensation Fund of 2001. This fund ensured that victims of the September 11 attacks would be eligible for compensation for the horrific losses they suffered. After extensive negotiations with the Bush administration, we established the September 11 fund to provide victims an alternative to what would have been a lengthy battle in court.

Under the stewardship of Ken Feinberg, the Special Master of the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund, and with the supervision of the Department of Justice, more than 1,000 of the 3,016 families of those who died in the September 11 attacks and more than 1,000 of the unknown number who were injured have filed claims.

The fund, which has no cap, had paid out $633 million by September 10, 2003, with an average award of about $1.6 million for death claims. It is a dignified way of doing it.

As we reach the 2-year anniversary of the anthrax attacks, Congress should do the same for those whose lives were harmed by these acts of bioterrorism

as we did for the victims of September 11. While we have taken significant steps to compensate the victims of the September 11 attacks and their families, no such action has been taken on behalf of the anthrax victims. Our legislation would remedy this.

Our bill would extend the deadline for filing claims with the fund by a year and expand the eligibility to include laboratory-confirmed anthrax tests.

As we reach the two-year anniversary of the anthrax attacks, Congress should do the same for those whose lives were harmed by these acts of bioterrorism as it did for the victims of September 11, 2001. While we have taken significant steps to compensate the victims of the September 11 attacks and their families, no such action has been taken on behalf of the anthrax victims. Our legislation would remedy this.

Our bill would extend the deadline for filing claims with the fund by 1-year and expand the eligibility to include laboratory-confirmed anthrax cases.

The Centers for Disease Control, CDC, have confirmed 18 anthrax infections, and an additional four are considered to have been confirmed through other methods. Applicants would be subject to the same criteria and restrictions as were set for the September 11 victims. Eligible individuals who choose to file claims would then be considered by the Special Master who would make a final determination on level of compensation within 120 days of receiving the claim. Compensation will be targeted to help the neediest victims and their families. Any life insurance, death benefit, or other Government payment previously received by victims and their families would be taken into account, and filing a claim would preclude other civil remedies.

Yesterday marked the 2-year anniversary of the opening of the letter that spread anthrax throughout the Hart Senate Office Building, exposing 31 Senate employees to a highly potent and aerosolized form of anthrax and shutting down the Dirksen Senate Office Building for 2 weeks, the Hart Senate Office Building for 3 months and briefly closing the United States Capitol, the symbol of democracy. Our staffs were fortunate to receive excellent care and guidance from the Sergeant at Arms, the CDC, the attending physician, his dedicated staff of men and women and the Environmental Protection Agency, and none of the employees of the Senate were ultimately infected. Those days are indelibly etched in our memories.

To this day--and this is the first time I have ever spoken on the floor about the anthrax attack. I have to be honest, it is something that has been on my mind, on the mind of my wife, our children, our families, ever since that day.

Senator Daschle and I do not know what motivates somebody to target us and to endanger our staffs and so many others. Senator Daschle and I were the targets of the Senate letters, but we were not stricken with anthrax, and we have made very clear that we would not be covered by the terms of this legislation.

We will never know why we were singled out, but we do know what happened to people who were totally innocent. The letters were not addressed to them as they were to us.

Eighteen of the victims were not as fortunate as were most of us in the Senate family. While some did recover after receiving antibiotics, others have had their lives changed forever. Some are stricken with ailments, such as post-traumatic stress, depression and fatigue. They continue to suffer from the after-effects of the disease.

One postal worker who was infected with anthrax filed a $100 million suit against the U.S. Postal Service in January 2003. He did not want to have to take his case to court, but he says he felt he had to after repeated attempts to receive compensation and assistance in treating his illness. Last month, on September 24, the widow of the first anthrax victim in Florida filed lawsuits seeking more than $50 million and alleging that insufficient security at the Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, MD, and negligent actions by companies with military contracts, caused her husband's death. This bill would help these and other victims without forcing them to take their cases to the legal system.

The perpetrator or perpetrators of these acts of terrorism remain at large. I have no idea who directed these letters to Senator Daschle and myself. The F.B.I. continues its search. These victims cannot wait until the search is over. They deserve help now and we owe it to them to provide it.

Yesterday I joined with the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, both Senators from New York, and with others in introducing separate legislation to extend and broaden the fund's coverage to cover the victims of the 1993 World Trade Center attacks, the 1998 East African embassy attacks and the 2000 U.S.S. Cole attacks. I applaud Senator Specter for his leadership in this area. All Americans who have been victimized by acts of terrorism deserve our sympathy, our respect and our support.

Our hearts went out to the victims of these acts of terrorism and to their loved ones. Now they also need our help, and it is my hope that we will do the right thing by these victims of terrorism.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the achievements of an outstanding young woman. On October 8, 2003, Jennifer Jacques of Chelsea, VT, received an award from the Vision, Strength and Artistic Expression Arts Program's national contest for students with disabilities: Roadtrip: A Journey of Discovery. National recognition alone is deserving of applause and praise, but Jennifer's represents a very special and unique achievement that reaches far beyond her accomplishments in art.

Born with severe cerebral palsy, Jennifer is confined to her wheelchair. Able to control only her head and neck, she controls her wheelchair and computer, as well as her communication device, through a switch placed under her chin. A bright young woman of 18, Jennifer attends public school in Chelsea, where she is enrolled in classes with her peers.

Jennifer's art is not only a reflection of her talents, but also of her great ability to overcome the disabilities that have faced her. Working with her teachers and instructors, Jennifer directed the placement of paint on paper placed on the floor. By repeatedly driving her wheelchair over the paint, she was able to create textured paintings with striking color and design. Jennifer recently sold all of her abstract pieces that were displayed at an art show in Montpelier.

These accomplishments are a tribute to this exceptional young woman, her family and friends, her educators and instructors. Jennifer Jacques embodies what Vermont has done, what it can do, and what the future holds.

Mr. President, we voted today on the nomination of Prof. Jack Goldsmith to head the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice. I have serious reservations about Professor Goldsmith's nomination. In particular, I am concerned about his positions as they relate to the international protection of human rights, the engagement of the United States in holding accountable those who commit crimes against humanity, the administration's use of military tribunals and, more broadly, our Nation's place in the global community.

Professor Goldsmith is a leading opponent of the use of the Alien Tort Claims Act, ATCA. For the past 23 years, judges have interpreted the ATCA to allow victims of torture and abuse to file claims in United States courts against foreign governments, torturers, and multinational corporations. Victims have used the act to bring claims against notorious violators of human rights, such as war criminal Radovan Karadzic, the former prime minister of the Philippines, Ferdinand Marcos, and the banks and companies that profited from Nazi war crimes. Professor Goldsmith's opposition to the use of ATCA reflects a disturbing shift away from international efforts to hold human rights abusers responsible for their inhumane treatment of innocent victims throughout the world.

Professor Goldsmith is also a vocal opponent of the International Criminal Court, ICC. Over the past few months, the ICC has taken steps toward becoming an effective tool to hold accountable those accused of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. Yet Professor Goldsmith has dismissed the Court as ``futile'' and ``unrealistic.'' Many believe that the ICC is the best forum to bring the world's worst criminals to justice, but Professor Goldsmith has predicted that it is headed for the grave: I am hopeful that the United States can one day play a key role in ensuring that the ICC effectively carries out its historic mandate, and I worry that Professor Goldsmith has not demonstrated a commitment to leading the administration in this important direction.

Professor Goldsmith also vigorously defended the President's authority to try suspected terrorists by military tribunal, despite the concerns raised by many Americans and our allies about the legality of these practices. Legitimate questions have been raised about the administration's inconsistency in bringing some cases in federal court while referring other similar cases to military tribunals, where the defendants' rights are fewer and the procedures less clear. I urge Professor Goldsmith to take a hard look at the administration's recent treatment of prisoners of war: I fear it may have negative implications for the treatment of our own citizens abroad.

Professor Goldsmith's positions on ATCA, the ICC, and military tribunals reflect a broader, disturbing trend in his thinking, scholarship and writings. At a time when the United States should be increasing our engagement in the international community, I am concerned that Professor Goldsmith will advocate for less engagement. At a time when the United States should be increasing our global cooperation in areas such as the war on terrorism, the environment, and international peace and security, I am concerned that Professor Goldsmith will advocate for less cooperation. At a time when the United States should be reaffirming

our commitment to protecting individual liberties, due process rights, and access to equal justice, I am concerned that Professor Goldsmith lacks a true commitment to these foundations of our democracy.

I am also alarmed by the veil of secrecy that has been drawn by Attorney General Ashcroft over the operations of the Office of Legal Counsel. I encourage Professor Goldsmith to allow the sun to shine into the Office of Legal Counsel by disclosing memoranda and opinions to the American public, insofar as such disclosure would not raise legitimate national security concerns.

I hope that, within the context of Professor Goldsmith's temporary appointment, he will look beyond his academic musings and offer the objective legal advice he promised this Senate he would provide. As he develops his legal opinions and advises the administration, I hope that he seriously considers the universally accepted international legal norms that have proven essential in protecting the rights of all members of our global community to freedom, security, and due process of law.

Mr. President, I urge the Senate to pass S. 1642, a bill to extend for 5 years the EB-5 immigrant investor visa regional center pilot program, which lapsed at the end of the fiscal year on Tuesday. I am pleased that Senators Brownback and Daschle have joined me in sponsoring this bill. There are more than 25 regions in the Nation that have qualified as a ``regional center'' under this program, including in my State of Vermont. This designation allows them to attract foreign investment by adjusting the standard that investors must meet to obtain legal permanent resident status. The entrepreneurs must still meet a heavy burden, however, showing that their investment will create 10 or more jobs in these relatively depressed areas.

The pilot program is narrowly tailored to avoid fraud. An area seeking regional center status must provide, among other things, detailed information regarding how the center will promote economic growth through improved regional productivity, job creation, and increased domestic capital investment. The applicant must also provide a detailed explanation of why the regional center will have a positive impact on the regional or national economy in general.

The Judiciary Committee approved the language in this bill unanimously, as part of a substitute amendment to S. 1580, the Religious Workers Act of 2003. I am pleased to include an amendment from Senator Feingold that the Judiciary Committee also unanimously approved, calling for a GAO study on the EB-5 program as a whole. Such a study will give us a better idea of how the program is working and what improvements may be needed.

This is an important program for my State and many other regions of the country, and I ask for the support of all Senators in extending it for an additional 5 years.

Mr. President, this House bill is identical to S. 1580, the Religious Workers Act of 2003, of which I am a proud cosponsor. The bill extends for 5 years provisions of our immigration law that provide for special immigrant visas for religious workers sponsored by religious organizations in the United States. These visas allow religious denominations or organizations in the United States to bring in foreign nationals to perform religious work here. This modest program--which provides for up to 5,000 religious immigrant visas a year--was created in the Immigration Act of 1990, and has been extended ever since.

These religious workers contribute significantly not just to their religious communities, but to the community as a whole. They work in hospitals, nursing homes, and homeless shelters. They help immigrants and refugees adjust to the United States. In other words, they perform vital tasks that all too often go undone.

I have worked on this issue over the years, and cosponsored bills in 1997 and 2000 that would have made this program permanent. I still believe that it should be permanent but fully support a 5-year extension as the next best thing. Time is now of the essence as we have entered Fiscal Year 2004 and allowed this program to lapse.

The House passed this bill last month by voice vote. I urge the Senate to follow suit by approving this extension and sending it to the President without further delay.

Mr. President, on March 20 of this year, the Senate passed S. Res. 95, a resolution commending the President and the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, and the civilian personnel supporting them, for their efforts in the war in Iraq. I cosponsored that resolution. While there was some language in that resolution I would have changed or deleted, I felt it was appropriate and drafted in a relatively non-political, balanced way such that even those of us who had opposed the resolution authorizing the use of unilateral, pre- emptive force could support.

Today, the Republican leadership has put forward another resolution, which again commends the President and the men and women of the Armed Forces, as well as the civilian personnel who have supported them. I will also vote for this resolution. Of course we commend the troops, their families, and the Defense Department's civilian personnel, for their courage and sacrifice for their country. I have commended the extraordinary efforts of our troops in virtually every statement I have made about Iraq.

But this resolution goes further than S. Res. 95, in ways that I disagree with. It commends the contribution of defense contractors, for example. I have nothing against defense contractors. Many deserve recognition for their indispensable, innovative contributions to the success of our Armed Forces, including defense contractors in my own State of Vermont. It is, for example, these companies that developed the precision-guided weapons that helped to reduce the number of civilian casualties in Iraq. But other contractors have engaged in practices that have bilked American taxpayers out of many millions of dollars, overcharging for their services or manipulating the bidding process. I do not commend those contractors.

I also disagree with some of the wording of this resolution, because it may leave the wrong impression. For example, at one point it states ``Whereas the United States pursued sustained diplomatic, political, and economic efforts to remove those threats peacefully.'' It is true that the administration went to the United Nations, belatedly, under pressure from Congress and the rest of the world, to seek support for the use of force against Saddam Hussein. But it went to the United Nations with an attitude of ``you're either with us or against us,'' and when they did not get everything they wanted as quickly as they wanted it, they prematurely abandoned the diplomatic process and launched a unilateral military attack for the purported purpose of upholding U.N. resolutions without the support of the U.N. Security Council. The administration's diplomatic and political efforts were grudging, half hearted, and ineffective.

In addition, I am concerned, and disappointed, that this resolution makes no mention whatsoever of our diplomats and aid workers who are working tirelessly in Iraq under extremely dangerous and difficult conditions. Their bravery and sacrifice should also be recognized.

Mr. President, we want Iraq to become a democratic, prosperous nation. But let's be honest. We know why the Republican leadership hastily drafted this resolution last night. It is increasingly obvious to the American people that the war in Iraq, where United States soldiers are being killed and wounded every day 4 months after the President declared the ``mission accomplished,'' is going to drag on for years and cost hundreds of billions of dollars. The $87 billion supplemental appropriations bill we are considering is fraught with problems, and even Republicans are realizing that it is unpopular with a majority of their constituents. Compounding that, the White House is facing an internal probe of the leak of the identity of a covert CIA employee. So what do they do, they trot out another ``feel good'' resolution praising the President, in an effort to divert attention from the real issues. We have seen this too many times before.

Again, I will vote for this resolution because I am concerned about our troops and want them to know that each and every one of us supports them as they risk their lives to bring peace and security to Iraq. But I would hope that in the future we do better than these simplistic, politically motivated resolutions.

Mr. President, I want to commend both Senators from Minnesota for sponsoring this amendment. If they have no objection, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

I thank my friend, the distinguished Presiding Officer.

Amendment No. 1803

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. That is why I didn't follow the usual procedure where amendments are simply deemed read. This was a short enough one that I wanted it read.

It does what many of us feel we should have done 5 months ago when we appropriated the first $2.5 billion in foreign aid for Iraq. At the time we gave that very substantial amount of foreign aid to Iraq, many of us urged the Secretary of State--not the Secretary of Defense-- should have authority over the reconstruction program.

No matter who is Secretary of State, no matter who is Secretary of Defense, when you are going to give enormous amounts of foreign aid for reconstruction, the aid should be under the Department of State. After all, foreign aid is the responsibility of the State Department. Also, it is the responsibility of USAID. That is what they know how to do. That is what their people are trained to do.

It is not what the Pentagon does, nor, for that matter, is it what the Pentagon should be doing. The Pentagon is trained in military combat. In fact, our forces, the men and women in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, are the best trained, the best equipped, best motivated of any military in the world. Obviously, they showed they can easily defeat other military forces as they did in Iraq.

While they are trained for war, the State Department is trained to work to rebuild. In this case, as superb as the military role was, their leadership disregarded the preparatory work the State Department and USAID had done in planning for after the war. The problems they now face reflect that.

I am concerned we are putting our men and women in the military in an impossible situation. They are being asked not only to provide security, but to also oversee the reconstruction.

I have a lot of respect for Ambassador Bremer. I have known him and worked with him on terrorism and other matters over the years. He did a good job last week when he testified before the Appropriations Committee. Like a lawyer arguing the brief for his client, he argued well. But Ambassador Bremer's office, which is located in the Pentagon, until very recently was not capable of responding to our questions. The questions we were asking were not how many divisions might move here or how many tanks, airplanes, helicopters, men and women under arms can move, but, rather, how can we do a better job of getting water, and electricity, and other aid to the Iraqi people?

We saw the reconstruction plan, apparently a Pentagon plan, an 8-page document. When it came out a couple months ago, none of us on this side of aisle received it.

Now that we have seen it, I understand why they didn't want everyone to have it. It is embarrassingly illustrative of the administration's postwar strategy. There was no postwar strategy. All the strategy led up to winning in Iraq. Everyone knew how that would come out. Of course we would defeat the broken Iraqi army. Everyone knew we were going to win. This was not World War II. But, amazingly enough, there was no strategy for what happened after we won.

I am not among those who believe everything we have done in Iraq has been a failure. There has been progress. For one thing, I am glad Saddam Hussein is not here. He was a murderous tyrant. Members of the administration now talk about the murderous conduct of Saddam Hussein when he used chemical weapons against the Kurds--something many Members were outraged about at the time--and they seem to forget the administration they served at that time turned a blind eye to that and continued to give aid to Saddam Hussein.

Having said that, now I think everyone, whether those in the Congress or the administration who supported Saddam Hussein over the years, we all agree--all Republicans, all Democrats agree--he was a tyrant and it is good he is gone. That is progress.

We have begun to train a new army and police force and so on. That is progress. But we were told this spring that the amount of money for the aid program would be very small. Now we are asked to increase our aid program ten fold, with virtually no controls on how the money will be spent.

So, we got into the war, we had no plan for what we would do afterwards, we have real problems now, and now they want a blank check to take care of it. We will pay $33,000 each for pickup trucks that sell for $14,000 here, and we will pay $6,000 for telephones you can buy in the neighboring country of Jordan for $500 or $600. We will pay $50,000 a bed for a prison although that is far more than we would in the United States. We will repair their power infrastructure although we do not have money to do the same in the United States. We will build a whole lot of new schoolhouses although we do not have the money to fix our dilapidated schools. We will build state-of-the-art hospitals even though we do not have the money for new health clinics in parts of the United States. And we are told: Just give us the money and trust us; we know what to do.

In my State, we do not sign blank checks. I am sure we will give money for foreign aid even though we do not have the money to do the same things in the United States.

Simply spending more money does not get us back on track. We need a real plan, and we need the right agency in charge. That is why this amendment is so short. It is one sentence. It simply puts the Coalition Provisional Authority--and I assume that will be Ambassador Bremer although I am not doing this on an ad hominem basis--simply put the coalition provisional authority, Ambassador Bremer, who has been working around the clock to carry out our interests there, under the foreign policy guidance and direction of the Secretary of State. It would provide 60 days after enactment to give the State Department time to put in place the people it needs.

Does that mean the Department of Defense no longer has any role in reconstruction? Of course not. They obviously will be consulted on a continuous basis. Everyone knows nothing can be

built unless there is security to prevent attacks on contractors and aid workers and to prevent sabotage to the projects themselves. We are fortunate to have a superb military there to provide that kind of security. But that is what the Defense Department should be doing, providing the security but not trying to oversee foreign aid projects. That is not what they are trained to do.

It is unfair to our men and women in the military to ask them to do that. It was a mistake in the first place when we asked them to do it. We should not repeat that. Let us not ask the Department of Defense to suddenly become the State Department, AID, and the general dispenser of foreign aid. They are so well trained to do the things they do. Let those who are trained to handle foreign aid and the projects of reconstruction be there.

It is also worth noting, when you look at the civil affairs units in the Defense Department, almost all of them are composed of National Guard and Reserve units. Ironically, to the extent you are going to use the military for the nation building we are doing in Iraq--we are doing nation building in Afghanistan, and Lord knows where else--these are the men and women in uniform who are best equipped for the nation building we are doing in Iraq.

So we either have to keep these National Guard and Reserve forces in Iraq indefinitely--and I think the majority of the Members of both parties here do not want to see that happen--or we have to get the State Department and USAID more involved in doing nation building. I favor the latter approach. That is what my amendment would do.

I do not think we should continue to rely on these National Guard and Reserve units to do the long-term development work that should be done by others. Let that be done by the Department of State and AID, and let the Department of Defense provide the security for those who are doing the reconstruction in Iraq.

Some might ask if the Secretary of State wants that authority, given what a thankless job it is becoming in Iraq. I do not know. If he gets the authority, I will offer him not congratulations but condolences.

I see my dear friend.

Mr. President, the senior Senator from Virginia is not only one of the best friends I have in this place, and has been for the years that we have served together, but I also know he is one of the hardest working Members of the Senate.

As I mentioned earlier in my opening statement, I am not suggesting for a minute that Ambassador Bremer, for whom I have high regard, be replaced. I am simply saying that it is not a question of whether the Secretary of State should take this now or later; the fact is, this is his job. He should have been doing it from the beginning. We are not changing horses in midstream.

Incidentally, speaking of Mr. Kay and others, I also stated, prior to the Senator from Virginia coming to the floor, that, of course, the military would have to stay and provide the security so these people can continue to work. I am just saying, insofar as we are doing nation building, let it be done by the State Department, as we always have, and not think that somehow we can go solely as a military authority and then have this country suddenly, one day, become a democratic nation, and only then will we bring in the State Department to give aid.

I have looked at the plan. The plan said it was to give the Iraqi people the opportunity to realize President Bush's vision. We may want to ask them if that is exactly the vision they want. But be that as it may, this is not changing horses in midstream. We are getting on the right horse, in fact, the horse that has taken us across the stream for the last 50 years.

Every major postwar reconstruction effort since the Marshall plan has been under the auspices of the Secretary of State, not the Secretary of Defense: Afghanistan, Kosovo, East Timor, Bosnia, Cambodia. Even during the middle of the Vietnam war, economic aid was handled by AID.

I am thinking of an article on July 24, referring to an assessment by outside experts, commissioned by the Pentagon, who warned that the window of opportunity for postwar success is closing. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that: After initial deals for reconstruction stalled, it was time for plan B but there was no plan B.

I would hope the plan B that was written on July 23 is not it. I have a plan B. It is called the Secretary of State. Put the Department of State in charge of the reconstruction. Not the military part, of course. The military is going to be there for some substantial period of time--we know this--but allow them to do the things they are good at. They are not trained, nor should they be, to become a governing power, to become nation builders.

No, the Senator is not correct. The implication is that somehow my amendment would put everything under the State Department. We are being asked to provide over $80 billion. Roughly three-quarters of that goes to the Department of Defense. Nobody is asking anybody but the Department of Defense to handle it. We are

saying the $20 million of foreign aid--one of the largest foreign aid packages I have ever seen--the $20 billion of foreign aid that is brand new would be overseen by the State Department. We want to make sure that the Iraqis do not feel this is a long-term military operation.

People should know, my amendment doesn't stop the President from allocating and reallocating reconstruction funds to any agency, including Defense, but State would have oversight of that. It doesn't shut down the Coalition Provisional Authority. It doesn't require big changes there.

As I have said before, I am glad Ambassador Bremer is there. It doesn't micromanage the reconstruction effort. It doesn't create a disruption of any of the programs that are there. But it does say when we want to ask how these aid programs and reconstruction programs are going, we ask the questions of our State Department, the Department that has had this responsibility and expertise, and the Department that has always done this from the days of the Marshall plan on.

My friends keep saying, this is just like the Marshall plan. Well, there are some big differences. One, the Marshall plan didn't ask us to pick up the whole tab as this does. That was a dollar-for-dollar match. Some of it was in loans. It wasn't done immediately after the war. It took many hearings, hundreds of witnesses. And then working with the President, there was a congressional oversight committee that actually had input from both parties, both Republicans and Democrats, unlike the situation here with the 8 page plan that we were given two months late.

That is true.

Yes, but it does not shut down or require changes in the central command. It doesn't require any military to report to the Secretary of State.

Mr. President, I also see what the National Security Adviser said, and I quote:

The President must remember that the military is a special

instrument. It is lethal, and it is meant to be. It is not a

civilian police force. It is not a political referee. And it

is most certainly not designed to build a civilian society.

Dr. Rice said that.

The Washington Post reports that the diplomats on Ambassador Bremer's staff in Baghdad report directly to him, not to Washington, which is true. The Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has told the press he has to rely on newspapers and the diplomatic reports of other nations to keep abreast of developments in Iraq. Maybe they don't like the job, but that is what the State Department is designed to do. I have had times when somebody said I had to sit in this hearing for 4 hours because I was either chairman or ranking member of the committee, and I said, I don't want to, I would rather go to Vermont, or I would rather go hunting on my farm, or do other things. But you know what? It is my job, it is a job I was elected to do, and I have done it.

I am sorry if the State Department feels they don't need to do their job. Maybe they have too many people. Maybe we are spending money we don't need to there. I mean, this is what they do in Afghanistan. This is the role they have played in every post-war situation since the Marshall plan.

I ask, what is so different about Iraq? Suddenly, we are breaking 50 years of precedent and they don't want to do what they are supposed to do. I am worried, why don't they want to do their job? Are they concerned that they could not do it better than it is being done now? I would hope they could, or else we are spending an awful lot of money at the State Department that we don't need to spend.

If I may respond on that, as I have stated over and over again--and I will state it again for my good friend, who I refer to as ``my Senator'' when I am away from Vermont because I live part of the time in his beautiful Commonwealth. We are not asking the military to not do the job they do, and do well; we are not asking that they stop providing security or to not continue to hunt for Saddam Hussein or those connected with him. What I am saying is that they ought to be freed up to do that job. But they should not be doing the nation building the administration wants, which is our President's vision for Iraq. Let's give that job back to the people who are trained to do it.

I know the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee does not want to see our military there forever as an occupying force. He and I totally agree on that. He and I totally agree that our military is the finest in the world, and they have done extraordinarily well there. I think we have them stretched pretty thin in a lot of areas.

I am saying, let the military do the military work; let the State Department do the foreign aid work; and if the State Department is unwilling to do the kinds of things they are trained for, which they tell us year after year they need hundreds of millions of dollars more to do, then maybe we don't need them.

Mr. President, I am getting the impression that my distinguished friend, the senior Senator from Virginia, is not in agreement with my amendment and would like to keep the status quo, at least for now.

I respond that the current structure has not worked well. Between the two of us, we have a half century of listening to people testify. The Pentagon has said over and over again--certainly in a lot of the hearings I have had and I am sure that the Senator from Virginia has had--that they are not a foreign aid agency. The Pentagon is not a foreign aid agency.

I think the experience of the past 5 months in Iraq confirms that. They came in there without a plan, a postwar plan. I believe they miscalculated terribly and they put our soldiers in a vulnerable position.

I yield to nobody in this body in my admiration of the men and women who are in Iraq, the members of our military, but the administration put them in an untenable position. They have to maintain order, fight terrorists, build schools and sewer systems, and do all that simultaneously. Let the military and the Secretary of Defense focus on fighting the war and leave foreign aid to the agencies with the expertise.

Just this week, one of our national news magazines said:

On the ground, the Coalition Provisional Authority, charged

with actually running Iraq until the Iraqis can take over, is

the source of increasing ridicule . . . So there they are,

sitting in their palace: 800 people, 17 of whom speak Arabic,

one is an expert on Iraq. Living in this cocoon. Writing

papers. ``It's absurd,'' says one dissident Pentagon

official. He exaggerates, but not by much. Most of the senior

civilian staff are not technical experts. . . .

Time magazine says Joe Fillmore, a contract translator with the 4th Infantry Division in Tikrit, agrees that resentment is deep. ``Things may look better on the surface,'' he says, ``but there is growing frustration with the occupation. The town is dividing into two parts: those who hate us, and those who don't mind us, but want us to go.''

Whether one was for or against war, we are now there. But when we are asked to buy enormously expensive items, to spend more money to build a hospital in Iraq than we would spend on a hospital in Vermont, when we are asked to spend more money on telecommunications in Iraq than we are willing to spend in many states in the United States, when we are asked to spend more money on the electrical infrastructure in Iraq than we are willing to spend here, when we are asked to spend more money to put people back to work in Iraq than we are willing to spend in the United States, when we are asked to spend more money for police and security and prisons in Iraq than we are willing to spend where it is needed in the United States, when we are asked to spend more money for vehicles in Iraq than we spend for vehicles in the United States, I think it is fair we ask is this right? Is this necessary? Maybe it is time to put the right people in charge.

Mr. President, when I hear this glowing description, I wonder why the administration is asking for another $20 billion. I wish most of the States in the United States were doing as well as what the Senator from Virginia has described.

If they are doing that well, maybe we should give the $20 billion to States in the United States that are not doing nearly as well and could probably use the money.

I am glad to hear the hospitals are all operating again. Obviously, from a humanitarian point of view that is important progress. I hope the Iraqis realize they can go to any hospital they want now and they will receive the help they need. If that is true, why do we need to spend another $150 million for another hospital? Rural hospitals throughout the 50 States of the United States cannot say that. I know a lot of places in the 50 States in the United States about which we cannot give the kind of glowing report the Senator from Virginia has given about Iraq.

Keep in mind, I am not asking for somebody to walk in there tomorrow and take over. But I would hope that within the next two months, with the 800 people in the palace over there, we might find more than 17 who can speak Arabic. That, I think, would be the kind of expertise the State Department could bring.

I hope we will have more than one expert on Iraq, and I hope we will tell the Iraqi people that we are as interested in them building their country following their vision and not, in almost a condescending way, saying we want them to have the opportunity to build a country that fits the vision our President has for them. After all, we are talking about a civilization that goes back long before this country was even discovered.

I have the floor.

Mr. President, I respond to the distinguished Senator from Nevada, we have had a good colloquy with the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia, which is not unexpected because the distinguished Senator from Virginia is one of the most knowledgeable Members of the Senate, as well as being a dear and close friend. I think we have probably proved, for those who are watching, the edification of having both sides here.

The Senator from Virginia, though I control the floor--I have yielded to him whenever he wanted.

I have had time to say what I am going to say. I am also apparently having incipient laryngitis, which is probably as crippling an illness as any Member of the Senate could have.

Full vigor everywhere except for my tonsils, I would say to my friend from Virginia.

The Senator from Virginia has the right to move to table, but this is an important issue, and I would hope that he would show his usual courtesy and withhold until people have had a chance to speak.

I yield the floor.

I ask the Senator from Alaska, could I yield to the Senator from Nevada for that purpose? Whatever is agreeable, I am perfectly willing to do.

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

I yield our time.

Mr. President, with the indulgence of the two leaders, I appreciate very much what the Democratic leader has said. He and I, and the distinguished majority leader, and Senator Hatch, and others, want to move judges whenever we have consensus. And I think we have shown we have.

In the 17 months we were in charge of the Senate, when we were the majority, we confirmed 100 of President Bush's nominees to the Federal judiciary. In the 16 months the Republicans have been in control, this will make another 64 we have confirmed. So it is around 164 between the 2 parties. It is a record that has not been matched for years and years and years.

But I am happy to accommodate the two leaders. I know the problems the two leaders have. I would not wish them on anybody else. The two leaders have been trying to schedule things, so I am happy to try to accommodate them and all Members.

Mr. President, I yield my time to the Senator from California.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, tonight we voted unanimously to confirm four district court nominees: William Hayes and John Houston to be U.S. District Judges for the Southern District of California, Robert Clive Jones to be a U.S. District Judge for the District of Nevada, and Phillip Figa to be a U.S. District Judge for the District of Colorado.

I commend the Republican leadership for finally bringing the nominations of William Hayes and John Houston of California to the floor. These two nominees will be filling vacancies on the busiest district court in the nation. The two seats which these men will fill have been created to address the growing crisis to the border court in San Diego--the federal court with the highest caseload per judge in the nation. It is too bad that the Republican leadership chose to move nominees from Oklahoma and Texas ahead of these California nominees who are desperately needed by the people of the Southern District of California due to the high caseload of that court.

I would also note that the way in which these nominees have come forth should be used as a model for the White House to emulate in other States and circuits. Senator Diane Feinstein and Senator Barbara Boxer worked hard to establish a bipartisan commission in California which has recommended these individuals for the Southern District of California. I am happy to be able to join the two California Senators in confirming these two new judges.

At the conclusion of the confirmation votes tonight, a total of 64 judicial nominees of President Bush will be confirmed this year. Adding that to the 100 confirmations during 17 months of the Democratic majority in the Senate, 164 of President Bush's judicial nominees have been confirmed thus far. This number of confirmations, 164, is significantly higher than Republicans allowed by the third year of President Clinton's second term, the most recent presidential term, when they allowed 135 judicial nominees of that president to be appointed from 1997 through the end of 1999.

It also should be noted that when I became chair of the Judiciary Committee on July 10, 2001, the Democrats inherited 110 vacant seats in the Federal judiciary. In the 17 months of Democratic control, we significantly reduced the vacancy rate by confirming 100 of President Bush's judicial nominees. Today, there are only 41 vacancies on the Federal courts. This is the lowest level reached in 13 years. Had we not created 15 new seats this year, that number would be even lower-- down to 26.

In just the past week, Senate Democrats have worked with the Republicans to confirm 10 district court judges and 1 circuit court judge. There are a lot of accusations of delay being thrown around but the truth is in these plain numbers. With more full-time Federal judges on the bench today than any other time in U.S. history, the confirmation process is moving forward and judges are being confirmed expeditiously with support from Democrats on the Judiciary Committee and in the full Senate.

Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support for a provision included by Senator Gregg in the Commerce-Justice-State portion of the emergency supplemental which provides $2 million for rewards to anyone who brings Charles Taylor before the Special Court for Sierra Leone.

I commend the senior Senator from New Hampshire for his strong leadership on this issue. Just a few months ago, when the Special Prosecutor for Special Court unsealed his indictment against Charles Taylor, he and I came to the Senate floor together to commend this strong and decisive action.

In that colloquy and in other floor statements, I described why it is so important for West Africa, as well as the cause of international justice, to bring Charles Taylor before the Special Court, I will not repeat all of that here today, but I just want to make a couple of additional points. Since his exile to Nigeria, press reports have revealed that Charles Taylor continues to try to foment chaos and instability in Liberia. There is no doubt that he wants to return, and will do so if given the opportunity.

Charles Taylor needs to come before the Special Court. This needs to happen immediately. Allowing him to remain in Nigeria is wrong. It is impeding peace and prosperity in a region that has endured tremendous suffering over the past decade.

The provision included in the supplemental can help get him before the Special Court. I look forward to working with Senators Gregg and Hollings

to keep this provision in the final version of the supplemental conference report.

I also want to point out that a humanitarian disaster continues to exist in Liberia, where thousands are without food, shelter, or basic medical care. Even after emergency needs are addressed, Liberia will require substantial amounts of additional assistance, as three-fourths of its citizens are impoverished, the unemployment rate is 85 percent, and seven out of ten of combatants involved in recent fighting in Liberia are child soldiers.

I am worried that the world's attention is focused elsewhere and we will simply forget about the plight of Liberia's people. In the coming weeks, I hope that we can find some money in this supplemental to address these critical needs. Even a tiny percentage of the more than $87 billion in this bill would save many lives.

Mr. President, today I am introducing with Senators Craig, Sununu, Durbin, and Reid, my distinguished colleagues from Idaho, New Hampshire, Illinois, and Nevada, the Patriot Oversight Restoration Act of 2003, a short bill whose singular but important purpose is to provide Congress the opportunity to take a hard look at the USA PATRIOT Act, which we passed in the anxious weeks following the devastating attacks of September 11, 2001. This bipartisan bill is moderate in scope; it would simply expand the sunset provision already enacted in the PATRIOT Act, to cover a number of additional provisions. The ensuing debate, however, should be considerable. My hope is that, before the sunset expires in December 2005, Congress will methodically revisit PATRIOT, with an eye toward achieving a suitable balance between the need to address the threat of terrorism and the need to protect our constitutional freedoms--and with the lessons of the past few years to guide us.

We recently marked the second anniversary of the September 11 attacks. As we reflect on that terrible day, and honor those who were lost, I strongly believe we should take stock of where we stand in our fight against terrorism. In the aftermath of the attacks, Congress and the administration did forge a constructive partnership to write the USA PATRIOT Act, which was meant to help our law enforcement and intelligence communities prevent future attacks from occurring. The PATRIOT Act represented our best efforts, under difficult circumstances, to balance the rights and liberties of the American people with the very urgent need to confront a threat to our Nation.

Even in balancing this tension, we granted the executive branch an unprecedented, vast new array of powers. We did so because we believed the administration's claim that it needed these powers to protect us, and because we trusted the administration's promise that it would use these powers appropriately. I noted at the time that PATRIOT was not the bill that I, or any of the sponsors, would have written if compromise were unnecessary. But I believed in the bill's purpose, and I gave it my vote and support. I worked hard to add checks and balances to many of its provisions, and did so.

Unfortunately, like many Members who supported the act--and like many Americans nationwide--I have come to feel disappointed. Since we passed the PATRIOT Act in October 2001, it has grown increasingly apparent that the trust and cooperation Congress provided to the executive branch has proved to be a one-way street. In the quarter-century that I have served in the Senate, no administration has been more secretive, more resistant to congressional oversight, and more disposed to acting unilaterally, without the approval of the American people or their democratically elected representatives. Despite the administration's unprecedented public relations campaign to promote the PATRIOT Act-- including a 16-State, 18-city tour by the Attorney General himself--the administration has yet to show that it is using its PATRIOT powers wisely. Instead, it has been secretly drafting a sequel to PATRIOT that would grant it even more far-reaching powers.

I would never oppose an open discussion of any legislative tool that would help in the fight against terrorism. But for such a debate to be fruitful, we need to know more about the tools that are already available, including those created by the PATRIOT Act. Which are working, and how well? Which are not working, and why? Which, if any, struck the wrong balance, threatening the civil liberties of our citizens while doing little or nothing to keep our Nation secure?

Immediately after the PATRIOT Act passed, the administration draped a cloak of secrecy around its use. When lawmakers and citizens have attempted to start a dialogue on PATRIOT-related issues, the response has been to ignore, insult or derisively dismiss them.

Attorney General Ashcroft has repeatedly declined to appear before the Judiciary Committee to answer questions, and his Department is painfully slow to respond to written requests for information. To quote my friend Senator Grassley, ``getting information from the Justice Department under Ashcroft is like pulling teeth.'' By ignoring oversight requests until answers are moot or outdated, and responding in only vague and conclusory fashion, if at all, the Justice Department frustrates our constitutional system of checks and balances, and sows the sort of public distrust that now accompanies the PATRIOT Act.

Just recently, in July, the Department dumped on committee members literally hundreds of pages of answers to questions that had been submitted to Attorney General Ashcroft and other senior Department officials following their testimony before the committee more than a year earlier. To give just one example of what a travesty it is when oversight questions remain unanswered for a year or more, the Department's responses dated July 17, 2003, devoted fully 15 pages to answering questions about Operation TIPS--an ill-conceived program that Congress had already terminated more than 8 months earlier.

Is the Department incapable of responding to congressional inquiries in a timely fashion? Is it deliberately stonewalling? Or does it simply believe that oversight is a game that it need not play?

Even more troubling, high-level administration officials have rashly suggested that anyone who dares to voice their concerns as unpatriotic, anti-American and pro-terrorist. In one of his rare appearances before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Ashcroft charged that ``fear mongers''--those who were raising concern about the loss of civil liberties--were only aiding the terrorists. More recently, a Justice Department official dismissed the many local government resolutions condemning the PATRIOT Act by saying ``half are either in cities in Vermont, very small population, or in college towns in California. It's in a lot of the usual enclaves where you might see nuclear free zones, or they

probably passed resolutions against the war in Iraq.''

It is unfortunate that the Justice Department felt it appropriate to ridicule these grass-roots efforts to participate in an important national dialogue. The opportunity to engage in public discourse is one of the hallmark benefits of being an American, and I am proud that Vermont towns are among those dedicated to thinking about and acting on these important issues. But more importantly, the concerns expressed in my home State are being echoed by Americans nationwide. To date, anti- PATRIOT resolutions have been passed by 178 communities in 32 States including Idaho, New Hampshire, and Illinois. These communities represent millions upon millions of Americans, not just a few free- spirited Vermonters, as the Justice Department has insinuated.

Concerns about the administration's antiterror tactics are also shared by Members on both sides of aisle, many of whom supported the PATRIOT Act as well as the war in Iraq, but who now know that the administration has been less than forthright about what it has been doing in the name of the American people. In July, the House voted to nullify section 213 of the PATRIOT Act, which allows law enforcement to ask a court to delay notice of a search warrant where it could have certain adverse results. And several bills have been introduced in both Houses to roll back another PATRIOT Act provision, section 215, which gives federal agents new power to obtain records from libraries and bookstores. Remarkably, in response, the Justice Department then declassified information summarily reflecting that it has never used the Section 215 powers--despite expressing urgent ``need'' during pre- PATRIOT Act debate. And almost simultaneous to this announcement, the President urged support for an alternative record gathering power when Section 215 is still on the books. One has to question the inconsistencies in these two positions and whether Congress should blindly confer data gathering powers on an administration that does not provide a hint of factual support for such requests. There is overall a growing sense in the nation that Congress moved too fast in enacting the PATRIOT Act, and that the Justice Department moved too slowly in explaining its use of this sweeping legislation.

When we passed the PATRIOT Act in October 2001, I noted that Congress needed to exercise careful oversight of how the Justice Department, the FBI and other executive branch agencies used the newly expanded powers that the act provided. The need for oversight and accountability is the reason that former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and I insisted on a sunset provision for several key provisions in PATRIOT--provisions that blurred the lines between criminal investigation and intelligence gathering. We succeeded, but only in part; several PATRIOT provisions that should have been subject to the sunset--including a few that were sunset or even cut in the version of the bill reported by the House Judiciary Committee--were omitted from the sunset. As enacted, the sunset applies only to certain enhanced surveillance authorities in title II of the act.

The PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act would extend PATRIOT's sunset provision to other enhanced surveillance provisions in title II of the act. These include subsections (a) and (c) of section 203, which authorize the disclosure of grand jury information to foreign enforcement, intelligence and immigration officials; sections 210 and 211, which broaden the types of information that law enforcement may obtain, upon request, from electronic communication service providers and cable service operators; section 213, which authorizes so-called ``sneak and peak''--delayed notification--search warrants; sections 216 and 222, which significantly expand when, where, and how law enforcement can obtain a pen register or trap and trace order; and section 219, which authorizes judges to sign search warrants for properties located outside their districts.

In addition to these title II provisions, the PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act would also extend the sunset to a handful of provisions in titles IV, V, VIII and X of the PATRIOT Act. These provisions include sections 411 and 1006, which expand the Government's authority to declare certain persons inadmissible to the United States; section 412, which grants the Attorney General authority to ``certify'' that an alien is engaged in activity that endangers the national security, and to take such an alien into custody; section 505, which gives law enforcement greater authority to access telephone, bank, and credit records through the issuance of so-called ``National Security Letters,'' even if no criminal investigation is pending and without court review; sections 507 and 508, which remove certain privacy protections for educational records and surveys--called ``obstacles'' to investigating terrorism in the PATRIOT Act; section 802, which defines ``domestic terrorism'' in a way that could be read to include political protesters engaged in civil disobedience; section 806, which uses the aforementioned definition of ``domestic terrorism'' to expand the government's civil forfeiture authority; and section 1003, which references another section of PATRIOT that is already covered by the sunset.

With the PATRIOT Act, Congress provided government investigators with a virtual smorgasbord of new powers from which to choose. Is the Government gorging itself on the secretive powers allowed for ``foreign intelligence'' gathering, with their less onerous procedural requirements, rather than relying on bedrock criminal investigatory techniques that are subject to more rigorous review by the Federal courts? Have we provided too many choices and too much power to a limited few? These are questions that require answers before the more far-reaching provisions of PATRIOT are etched into stone.

The events of September 11, 2001, resound in our hearts and in our memories. We owe it to the American people to be circumspect in the powers and authorities we grant, even in the name of national security. Our country was attacked on September 11 because of the democratic principles that this country stands for and that we love. It would be a cruel twist of irony to abandon those principles in the guise of a law named ``PATRIOT'' that might prove to be anything but a defender or protector of those cherished rights and freedoms.

The PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act offers a cautious and sensible solution to evolving fears about the PATRIOT Act. It will allow Congress to re-examine some of the important legal issues that abruptly confronted us in the weeks following September 11, and to re-assess our efforts with the benefit of hindsight and the luxury of time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and an analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, three years ago, Senator Smith, Senator Collins and I joined together to introduce the Innocence Protection Act, a modest and practical package of reforms aimed at reducing the risk of error in capital cases. The reforms we proposed were designed to create a fairer system of justice, where the problems that have sent innocent people to death row would not occur, and where victims and their families could be more certain of the accuracy, and finality, of the results.

During the last Congress, the Innocence Protection Act gained enormous momentum, with 32 Senators and 250 Representatives--well over half the House--signed on in support. Hearings were held in each House, and a version of the bill was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a bipartisan vote of 12 to 7. Now is the time to finish the job and enact this important legislation.

I am pleased, today, to introduce the Innocence Protection Act of 2003. This legislation is a piece of a larger bill called the Advancing Justice through DNA Technology Act of 2003, which provides an infusion of Federal funds to eliminate the current backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples in the Nation's crime labs and to improve the capacity of Federal, State and local crime labs to conduct DNA analyses.

The Innocence Protection Act of 2003 proposes two critical reforms. First, it provides greater access to post-conviction DNA testing in appropriate cases, where it can help expose wrongful convictions, and authorizes $25 million in grants over 5 years to help defray the costs of such testing. Second, the bill addresses what all the statistics and evidence show is the single most frequent cause of wrongful convictions--inadequate defense representation at trial. By far the most important reform we can undertake is to help States establish minimum standards of competency and funding for capital defense.

Other provisions of the Innocence Protection Act establish standards for preserving biological evidence in criminal cases, and substantially increase the maximum amount of compensation that may be awarded in Federal cases of wrongful conviction.

Today's Innocence Protection Act is a modified version of the bill that the Senate Judiciary Committee approved last year. These modifications follow many months of negotiation and deliberation, and were made to build further on the groundswell of support for the bill, both here on Capitol Hill and across America. More than ever, the bill is a collaborative product of which we all can be proud--an exercise of bipartisanship that is in the best tradition of the United States Congress.

I want to thank and commend the Senators and Representatives who worked so hard this summer and fall to come to agreement on a bill that we can all strongly support.

First and foremost, I want to thank my partner in this endeavor, Representative Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts, who has worked tirelessly over many years to achieve this goal. I also want to thank our lead Republican sponsors in both houses, Senators Gordon Smith and Susan Collins, and Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois, all of whom have been steadfast in their commitment to this effort.

The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Orrin Hatch, deserves high praise for his leadership in our recent negotiations, as does the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jim Sensenbrenner, and I thank them both. Senator Hatch and I have debated these issues for years. I have always appreciated his thoughtful approach and serious commitment to improving the criminal justice system. Representative Sensenbrenner played an instrumental role in this process and I do not believe we could have come so far without his dedication. In addition, I want to extend my heartfelt thanks to Senator Feinstein, who has devoted countless hours over the years to reconciling the policy differences that prevented this legislation from moving forward.

I am sorry that Senator DeWine could not be with us earlier today to announce the introduction of the bill, and appreciate his willingness to allow us to proceed. I have long worked with Senator DeWine on funding important forensic science tools for law enforcement, and we are currently working on a proposal with regard to how the mentally retarded are treated by the criminal justice system. His leadership on these issues is important and greatly appreciated.

Thanks, too, to the many members on both sides of the aisle, in the Senate and in the House, who have supported this legislation over the years. Working together, we can finally begin to address the many problems facing our capital punishment system.

Capital Representation Improvement Grants: I would like to take a moment now to elaborate on the capital defense representation provisions of the bill, both because they are the more important provisions and because they have been the principal subject of the recent revisions to the bill.

The new version of the Innocence Protection Act establishes a grant program for States to improve the systems by which they appoint and compensate lawyers in death cases. States that authorize capital punishment may apply for these grants or not, as they wish. However, if a State chooses to accept the money, it must open itself up to a set of requirements designed to ensure that its system truly meets basic standards. After all, the point of the bill is not to throw money at the problem of inadequate representation; the point is to fix it.

Earlier versions of the Innocence Protection Act took more of a ``carrot and stick'' approach to the counsel issue. The ``carrot'' was the same as in the current version: millions of dollars in Federal grants to help achieve adequate representation in capital cases. The ``stick''--which is no longer in the bill--has evolved over the years. At one

time, we proposed that States that failed to meet basic competent counsel standards would have their death sentences given less deference and subjected to more rigorous Federal court review. In some versions of the bill, non-complying States would also have forfeited some Federal prison grant funding over time. In the version that the Judiciary Committee approved last year, if a State chose not to participate in the new Federal grant program, the Attorney General would award the money to one or more defender organizations within the State, to be used for capital defense work.

Each of these various mechanisms would have helped ensure cooperation on the part of the States, and I am disappointed that I was unable to prevail upon my colleagues to include any one of them. Still, I believe that the current formulation is a good first step and will make a difference, provided that the grant program is fully funded and that the States which are most in need of reform elect to participate.

As reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, the bill aimed to ensure full funding of the counsel program by providing that, if Congress failed to appropriate sufficient funding for the program, up to 10 percent of the Byrne block grant would be used for this purpose. I regret that this provision has been dropped from the bill; it seemed to me a good way to express our commitment to ensuring that the program is funded. However, given the tremendous support for this legislation in both houses, and on both sides of the aisle, I am confident that Congress will speak with one voice in ensuring that our years of effort are not undermined by a failure to appropriate the money needed to make this legislation effective.

Getting States to participate in the program may be more difficult. Indeed, the States that are in most need of reform may be the least inclined to participate, given that they will have the most to do to bring their indigent defense systems into compliance with the terms and conditions of the grant. While I am hopeful that States will want to improve their systems, and will welcome the infusion of Federal funds for this purpose, Congress will need to monitor this program carefully to ensure that it is meeting its stated objective of improving the quality of legal representation provided to indigent defendants in State capital cases and, if it is not, to take additional remedial action.

Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program: We have also established a $25 million grant program to help defray the costs of post-conviction DNA testing. This program is named in honor of Kirk Bloodsworth, the first death row inmate to be exonerated by DNA testing.

I first met Kirk in February 2000, when he came to me as a man who had been exonerated after almost nine years of wrongful imprisonment. I am proud to say that we have become close friends and partners in the fight to reform capital punishment in America. I am also delighted that Kirk can finally feel truly free. Just a few weeks ago, the State of Maryland charged another man with the crime for which Kirk was convicted and sentenced to death, after prosecutors finally ran the DNA evidence in the case through the DNA database. The prosecutor who sent Kirk to death row, and who had previously refused to acknowledge his innocence, went to his home to apologize to him.

Kirk Bloodsworth's battle to prove his own innocence has been won. But his nightmare of wrongful conviction has been repeated again and again across the country. Since the reinstatement of capital punishment in the 1970s, more than 110 individuals who were convicted and sentenced to death have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. In addition, since the introduction of forensic DNA typing into the legal system in the early 1990s, many more individuals who were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment have been exonerated by post-conviction DNA testing. The Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program will help assist others who have experienced wrongful conviction.

Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program: As I noted earlier, this version of the Innocence Protection Act is being introduced as part of a larger package of criminal justice reforms, titled the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003, which will substantially increase Federal resources available to State and local governments to combat crimes with DNA technology. Among other things, this legislation creates the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program, which authorizes $755 million over the next five years to reduce the current backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples in the Nation's crime labs.

I have worked with the proponents of this program to revise the allocation formula, so that each State is guaranteed a minimum allocation of .50 percent of the total amount appropriated in a fiscal year. This will make the program fair for all States, including smaller States like Vermont.

As DNA testing has moved to the front lines of the war on crime, forensic laboratories nationwide have experienced a significant increase in their caseloads, both in number and complexity. Funding has simply not kept pace with this increasing demand, and forensic labs nationwide are now seriously bottlenecked.

Backlogs have seriously impeded the use of DNA testing in solving cases without suspects--and reexamining cases in which there are strong claims of innocence--as labs are required to give priority status to those cases in which a suspect is known. Solely for lack of funding, critical evidence remains untested while rapists and killers remain at large. The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program will give States the help they desperately need to carry out DNA analyses of backlogged evidence, and I strongly support its passage and full funding.

Expansion of the Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences Improvement Grant Program: The bill also expands and extends for another three years an existing grant program, named after our late colleague, Senator Paul Coverdell. Congress passed the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act three years ago, with the goal of improving the quality and timeliness of State and local forensic science services. I was proud to cosponsor that legislation, and have worked since its passage to secure full funding for the grant program it establishes. Unfortunately, despite my efforts and those of other Members, and notwithstanding the urgent pleas of lab directors nationwide, the President has never requested funding for Paul Coverdell grants, and Congress has never appropriated sufficient funds to make the program effective. The legislation we introduce today renews our commitment to this important initiative.

Our bill also expands the purposes for which Paul Coverdell grants may be used, to include the elimination of a non-DNA forensic evidence backlog. The need for this measure was highlighted earlier this year at a subcommittee hearing on funding forensic sciences. Witness after witness testified that DNA evidence is not the only evidence that is going untested for lack of resources. Crime labs are also facing substantial backlogs with respect to other types of forensic science evidence, including firearms, latent prints, controlled substances, toxicology, trace evidence, questionable documents, and forensic pathology. We need to ensure that our labs are equipped to address the full range of issues that they are called upon to handle.

We have had a constructive debate. We have shown that the death penalty system is broken, and we have built a bipartisan coalition supporting reforms. It is now time to act. Our bill reflects a principled consensus on the most basic and essential reforms; it raises no serious constitutional or law enforcement concerns; it will improve criminal justice in America considerably; and it may well save innocent lives. I am therefore proud to sponsor it, and I urge its speedy passage into law.