Floor Statements

Mr. President, as we are in the midst of North Korea Freedom Week, I would like to speak to the human rights situation in North Korea. As we continually strive to protect the freedoms that this country holds dear, such as the freedoms of religion, press, speech and assembly that are recognized in our Constitution, we must also concentrate on spreading these freedoms to those who do not enjoy them. As these rights should be enjoyed by all people, not just Americans, freedom must extend beyond our borders to reach those who live in a world unknown to many of us, one that includes starvation and deprivation of all freedoms. North Korea Freedom Week gives us the opportunity to shed light on the situation inside this oppressive regime.

Several years ago in order to help promote freedom throughout the world, I began the Congressional Working Group on Religious Freedom. The purpose of this group is to focus attention on issues of domestic and international religious freedom. As a group, we seek to uphold and help enforce the meaning of article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states: ``Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.''

As has been noted by human rights groups and others, the human rights situation in North Korea is severe. Hundreds of thousands of North Koreans have fled their country in hopes of survival and in search of a free life. However, even if they manage to escape, they still live in constant fear of repatriation and imprisonment. President Bush has called North Korea's autocratic leader, Kim Jong Il, a ``tyrant'' who runs ``concentration camps.'' Despite the country being embedded in secrecy, unfortunate stories of persecution, starvation, and public executions for crossing the border manage to be released to the rest of the world. Such actions under this regime are a terrible travesty.

While the North Korean constitution provides for ``freedom of religion,'' such freedom does not exist. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom said in their 2005 annual report: ``By all accounts, there are virtually no personal freedoms in North Korea and no protection for universal human rights. In pursuit of absolute control of all facets of politics and society, the government under dictator Kim Jong Il has created an environment of fear in which dissent of any kind is not tolerated. Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief remains essentially non-existent, as the government severely represses public and private religious activities and has a policy of actively discriminating against religious believers.

There are a growing number of reports from North Korea refugees that any unauthorized religious activity inside North Korea is met with arrest, imprisonment, torture, and sometimes execution by North Korean officials.''

Furthermore, the U.S. Department of State's 2005 Country Report on Human Rights Practices sums up North Korea's actions by listing documented or alleged human rights abuses over the years. Such instances include: abridgement of the right to change the government; extrajudicial killings, disappearances, and arbitrary detention, including many political prisoners; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; torture; forced abortions and infanticide in prisons; lack of an independent judiciary and fair trials; denial of freedom of speech, press, assembly, and association; government attempts to control all information; denial of freedom of religion, freedom of movement, and worker rights; and severe punishment of some repatriated refugees.

I also want to note President Bush's appointment last August of Ambassador Jay Lefkowitz to the position of Special Envoy for Human Rights in North Korea. The Special Envoy post was established under the North Korea Human Rights Act, and with this appointment, signaled the administration's intensified attention to human rights in North Korea. I am confident that Ambassador Lefkowitz will continue to take steps toward ending North Korea's suppression of freedoms.

As we in the Senate continue to address the persecution and the fears that North Koreans face, it is my hope that we will do all we can in order to improve the conditions in this communist state and to spread the freedoms that we all enjoy.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3214 and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this is an amendment offered along with Senator Mikulski on the Polish visa waiver program. This is an issue I have talked about on numerous occasions along with Senator Mikulski. We have concern that one of our best allies--in fact, one of our staunchest allies--has great concerns about the way they are being treated in the United States with respect to the visa waiver program.

The visa waiver program is available to 27 countries around the world. That allows citizens from those countries to travel in the United States for vacation and visiting families, et cetera, without requiring a visa. This is a program which is given to countries which we have a special relationship with and which are able to meet certain criteria laid out in the law and have been certified by the Department of State as having met that criteria.

Poland, so far, has not been able to meet the criteria that has been laid out in statute, although I will say that when Senator Mikulski and I introduced this in the last session and

pushed for its adoption, I think we energized the administration and State Department to get to work and try to find a way for us to meet the Poles halfway with respect to getting them into the visa waiver program.

I am very pleased to see that last year, they were again writing letters, putting on pressure, threatening to bring this bill up for purposes of passage. We brought it up in the 108th Congress and tried to pass it. Unfortunately, there was an objection on the other side of the aisle. We cleared it here, and I think there is broad support for taking a country--and it is now 25 years since the strike at the Gdansk Shipyard. There has been a tremendous change in this country which was brought about by real freedom fighters, led at the time by Lech Walesa and subsequent leaders to establish a stable democracy there--a democracy that is thriving and one that had an election recently and elected a new President. It is a President who I believe will continue to have very strong ties to the United States.

I know the Polish people. I have a lot of Poles in my State, and they tell me they travel over there, and the sentiment and feeling toward America is very strong. There is support for us in the war on terror, as strong as any country in the world. They have been a terrific ally during this period of time.

Obviously, the contribution the Polish Americans have made to this country, from Revolutionary War times all the way through today, is quite striking and important. So we have a country that has made fundamental changes toward democracy and toward a free market economy, which is doing relatively well, a country that we have so much in common with. Yet while almost all of the European Union countries participate in the visa waiver program, unfortunately, Poland has not been granted that waiver.

The President, last year, in response to the activity here in Congress, was able to put together what is called the roadmap. The roadmap was negotiated on February 9 of last year with then-President Kwasniewski. He laid out some very real steps to try to help give Poland another chance to show that they are prepared to meet the requirements of the law.

Unfortunately, we still have a situation where we have very high refusal rates. That is one of the criteria, but I am not too sure it is a good criterion. It basically trusts a bureaucrat in an embassy in Poland to determine whether someone should enter this country for the purpose of travel. When they are refused, for whatever reason, that adds to the refusal rate, and that rate is high. I don't know whether the embassy there is tougher or what. Also, the refusal rate sometimes is not reflective of the actual percentage of people who are trying to come here and are refused. If 1 person wants to come and asks 10 times, that is 10 refusals, not 1. To me, that also can skew the number of refusals.

I am just suggesting that I think we have a special case here. Congress has done this in the past with Ireland. Congress stepped forward, and we pushed the executive branch at that time to allow Ireland into the visa waiver program. I think it is time for us, given the tremendous support we have gotten from the Polish people, the tremendous relationship between our countries, the tremendous contribution the Poles continue to make to this country--and I can tell you, hearing from them on a regular basis as I do, since we have a large Polish population in our State, that this is something vitally important to Polish Americans--the ability of family members to come for weddings, funerals, birthdays, et cetera, and not have to wait for the bureaucracy at the American Embassy in Poland to approve these types of activities.

This is an important sign to a good friend that we stand with them and that we want to treat them as one of our best friends because, indeed, they are one of our best friends in the world. Senator Mikulski and I have drafted a piece of legislation that puts Poland into the visa waiver program. I reached out to the Judiciary Committee, which is responsible for this bill. I said: Look, if you have concerns and some tweaks we can make that gets them into the program but puts reasonable standards in place, we are happy to consider that. To date, on both sides of the aisle, we have not had very much cooperation in making what I consider to be some minor tweaks that would be necessary to pass this legislation.

I have come today to offer this amendment. Hopefully, we can get this accepted. If not, I would like to have a vote on this amendment. I believe it is important for all of us to stand up before our friends in Poland and affirm our support for them, as they have affirmed over the past many years their support for the United States and the initiatives we have taken around the world.

Mr. President, if you look at some of the countries that are in this program, we have countries such as Brunei in the visa waiver program, San Marino, and Liechtenstein. I suggest that if you are looking at countries that are supportive of the United States, I am not too sure you would name those above Poland. If you name a country whose culture, whose people have close ties to the United States, I am not too sure you would list those countries above Poland.

I hope we can consider this amendment and adopt this amendment, approve this amendment, and send a very strong signal to our friends in Poland that we stand in solidarity with them for their efforts to democratize, to open markets, and to create the freedom that our President and so many in the Chamber have advocated over the past several years.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment and acknowledge the dedicated service of Tim Petty, director of information resources for the U.S. Senate Republican Conference, which I chair. Tim is moving on to become a Deputy Assistant Secretary at the U.S. Department of Interior, and today is his last day serving the Senate.

Since 1999, Tim has served as an integral team leader in the creation and development of the Internet technology department established by the Senate Republican Conference. This department was created to help the Conference implement a comprehensive technology strategy to help the Republican leadership efficiently and effectively use evolving Internet communication capabilities.

Over the course of the past 7 years, Tim has led efforts and worked in collaboration with Senate and leadership offices in transforming the way the conference communicates and disseminates information using 21st century strategies and technology. Tim is always thinking of the next step, the next tool, the next idea.

Highlights of just a few of Tim's many accomplishments at the Senate include a 2002 overhaul of the leadership's Intranet, known as the TrunkLine. This successful redesign and restructuring of the Intranet enhanced the ability of staff members to find key information provided from the Leadership, which helps strengthen communication strategies and overall messaging. In 2004, the TrunkLine was recognized by a prominent Internet usability report as one the top 10 government Intranets in the world. Only 3 of the top 10 Intranets selected were from the United States.

In keeping with the vision of helping offices with their technology strategies, Tim led an initiative involving online database access that allowed all Senate offices to develop their own dynamic Web sites. Many offices are now able to more fully manage their own Web sites and share information as a result of this effort.

One of Tim's primary objectives over the past 2 years has been enhancing the conference's ability to utilize wireless communications. A year ago the Republican Cloakroom began posting key legislative updates to the TrunkLine which then generates notices to wireless devices instantaneously when a legislative bill is hotlined. Prior to this change, notifications were done through a telephone broadcast system.

Another technological communications tool Tim initiated for the conference is videoconferencing, which has allowed Senators to talk to State offices, meet with students in their classrooms, and to participate in conferences and meetings of constituents in real time.

Tim also recognized the value of blogging and has implemented a strategy to reach beyond the usual media to take advantage of reaching a new audience with the Republican message.

Tim's leadership in the area of technology strategy has been invaluable to our conference. I appreciate his enthusiasm and tireless efforts to help move an institution known for holding onto traditions into the 21st century. I wish him the very best in his new service.

Mr. President, I have to respond to my colleague from Illinois, who suggested that somehow the Iraqis are not standing up and fighting for the freedom of their country and the comment, ``How much longer do we have to wait?''

Ask the Iraqi families of the men who were beheaded--30 of them most recently--whether they are waiting for the Iraqis to step forward and sacrifice for their country. Ask the Iraqis who are in the military who are dying today, sacrificing for the freedom of their country, whether they are waiting. The people of Iraq are stepping forward and fighting for their country. We are helping them do that. It is the clear intention of our policy in Iraq to hand over the responsibility, and it is happening.

I find it almost remarkable that here now, 3 years into this conflict, where we are trying to transform an entire society, that the level of patience for this very difficult process, given all the progress made and all the elections that have been held and the Constitution drafted--I think in all but four of the provinces, there is very little terrorist activity, or insurgent activity, or whatever you want to call it. There is a concentration in a few provinces where there are problems.

But I met with people from Mosul yesterday--elected officials--who came here and talked about the dramatic improvements that are going on in that area, and the lack of any kind of al-Qaida operations and terrorist operations in that area, saying that life is dramatically advancing. We don't hear talk about that. We hear talk about the problem spots, and that is legitimate. But the idea that the Iraqis are not fighting for their country, that they are not stepping forward--as we see day in and day out that they are conducting missions and they are eliminating the terrorist threat in Iraq--I think it is almost incredible. I don't know how you can read the news and suggest that the Iraqis are not stepping forward to defend their country and fight for their freedom.

Also, coming back to the issue of patience, I thank God sometimes that some of the elected officials who are here today were not around in 1777, 1778, and 1779. We would still be singing ``God save the queen,'' not ``hail to the chief.'' It took us 11 years to put a democracy together, in circumstances that I suggest were far less difficult, in a neighborhood that was far less problematic than the neighborhood Iraq happens to be situated in. So the idea that we have lost our patience in a

struggle against Islamic fascism, which is a real present danger to the future of the United States of America, to me, is almost unconscionable.

This is a struggle we are engaged in. This is a struggle for our time. It is one that I believe history will look back upon and suggest that we met the threat that would have fundamentally changed the future of the world, and we met it before it did so. We met it with strength, with determination, and we overcame the doubters, overcame those who would have rather cut and run. I am not for cutting and running when it comes to the future security of this country. I have patience because things that are difficult and meaningful take time. We have to give that time.

I suggest there are some things that we are finding out now. Another effort I have been working on in Iraq is the intelligence information we have been able to gather from the former regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. This has been a project that Congressman Peter Hoekstra, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has been working on--and I have worked with him--to make sure these 48,000 boxes, containing roughly 2 million documents, are released to the American public and the world to determine what was the intelligence assessment and the activity level and, in particular, in Iraq with Saddam, and with his interaction with elements of al-Qaida or other terrorist organizations.

What we are finding is that some of the statements that have been made on the floor and statements that were made just as recently as March 19, 2006 by my colleague from Pennsylvania, Congressman Jack Murtha, who said:

There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went there. None.

There was no connection with al-Qaida. There was no

connection with terrorism in Iraq itself.

Yet if we look at some of the documents that are being released by Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte--and, again, only a few hundred of the millions of documents have been released. As a caveat, while Congressman Hoekstra and I are excited about the fact that DNI decided to release these documents, the pace of the release is, let us say, unsatisfactory to this point.

We have, with the blogosphere, the Internet, the opportunity to put these documents out there and have almost instantaneously translated postings about what these documents contain.

During the time the Director of National Intelligence Negroponte has had these documents--this is 3 years ago--less than 2 percent of the documents have been translated. At this pace, my grandchildren may know what is in these documents.

We need to get these documents out. Mr. President, 600 over a little over a 2-week period is almost the same pace as translating with the people they had over in DNI Negroponte's shop. We need to get these documents out quicker. Why? Because if we look at what is in these documents, there is important information in understanding the connection between Iraq and terrorist organizations and the threat we were facing, the potential threat we had talked about, which is the coordination between a country that had used chemical and biological weapons, was thought universally to have chemical and biological weapons, and terrorists who have expressed a direct desire to use those weapons and get access to them.

If we look at a report that was issued by the Pentagon Joint Forces Command translating and analyzing some of these documents, called the ``Iraqi Perspectives,'' on page 54, they write: Beginning in 1994, the Fedayeen Saddam opened its own paramilitary training camps for volunteers--this is 9 years, by the way, before the Iraq war-- graduating more than 7,200 ``good men racing full with courage and enthusiasm'' in the first year.

Mr. President, 7,200 in the first year, 1994.

Beginning in 1998, these camps began hosting ``Arab volunteers from Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, `the Gulf,' and Syria.'' Volunteers. I wonder why they would be volunteering to help Saddam. It is not clear, it says, from the available evidence where are all these non-Iraqi volunteers who were ``sacrificing for the cause'' went to ply their newfound skills. Before the summer of 2002, most volunteers went home upon the completion of training. They didn't stay in Iraq. They came for training from countries in the gulf regions, and they went home. Odd that they would be fighting for the cause which would, in that case, be Saddam, if they went home.

Before the summer of 2002, as I said, most volunteers went home upon completion of the training, but these camps were humming with frenzied activity in the months immediately prior to the war.

As late as January 2003, the volunteers participated in a special training event called the Heroes Attack.

Stephen Hayes, who deserves a tremendous amount of credit for his reporting on these documents in the Weekly Standard, has brought this issue to the forefront and has awakened Members of Congress, myself included, to the importance of discovering the content of these documents as well as some of the information contained in these documents.

He reminds us of the special significance of that training in 1998:

That is the same year that the U.N. weapons inspectors left

Iraq for good; the same year a known al Qaeda operative

visited Baghdad for 16 days in March; the same year the U.S.

embassies were bombed in East Africa; the same year the U.S.

bombed Baghdad in Operation Desert Fox; and, the same year

Saddam wired $150,000 to Jabir Salim, the former Iraqi

Ambassador to the Czech Republic, and ordered him to recruit

Islamic radicals to blow up the headquarters of Radio Free

Europe.

What we have here is, again, information that I believe is vitally important for the American public to see. I encourage Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte to step up the pace. Congressman Hoekstra and I have introduced legislation which would require just that: it would require the release of these documents and provides a way to do so.

We introduced this legislation prior to the decision to release these documents, but, again, I just make the point that the pace with which these documents are being released is inadequate. We need to continue to step that up, allow this information to get out for people to see, pro and con--all the information that is available to us. These are old documents. They are at least 3 years old; in some cases much more than that. The classified nature is specious, at best. We want to protect names, obviously, if there are reasons to protect certain names because of potential fallout from having their names released. If there are recipes for chemical weapons, fine. But the bottom line is most of this information should be released, can be released, and is not being released.

I assure my colleagues--and I think I can speak for Congressman Hoekstra in this regard--we will stay on this issue, and we will make sure all of this information is made available to the American public so we have a better understanding of what the situation was in Iraq prior to the war.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3052 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment adds $566 million for the Global AIDS Fund. This is a fund that historically the United States has participated at one-third funding level. It is an encouragement and incentive for the rest of the world to contribute to end the scourge of HIV/AIDS, particularly on the continent of Africa. To be able to meet that requirement for this funding year required an additional $566 million above the President's request of $300 million. That will fund 85 percent of the renewals that are coming due this year, in addition to round six of new funding for this initiative by the Global Fund.

This is a commitment that the United States has made. We have been a leader on this. We need to continue to lead in an area that does cry out for humanitarian support and compassion by the people of the United States.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 3050.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this is an amendment I am offering on behalf of Senator Coleman as well as Senator Collins and Senator Snowe on the CDBG Program. This is an amendment I worked with Senator Coleman on last year. He offered it last year, and I want to thank him for his cooperation in allowing me to step forward.

This is an important issue to my State. It is an important issue to most States across America. This is a program that is, I believe, one of the most effective programs we have in the Federal Government to help localities deal with housing problems, local economic development problems, and community problems we have. In Pennsylvania we get well over $50 million a year for this program. I don't know of anything that unites Republicans and Democrats on a local level more than the CDBG Program.

The Community Development Block Grant Program, CDBG, is a program that takes money from the Federal Government and distributes it into the local communities for local priorities. There is a broad degree of discretion in this program and it allows the local communities to leverage Federal dollars to attract, in some cases, private dollars and, in some cases, other State dollars or philanthropic dollars that are used for projects that are vital to the local community.

Unfortunately, in the last few years, the President has reduced the funding allocation for this program. Last year we were able to put back some of that money into CDBG. We ended up with about $3.7 billion for the CDBG last year. My amendment would add $1.3 billion. That would bring it up to $4.3 billion for this year. That level, by the way, is exactly the level that was appropriated for CDBG in the year 2004. So we are not talking about an outrageous increase; we are just trying to get back to historic levels of funding for this program.

Again, it is a program that is vitally important for the local community. This is offset with section 920. I have heard the Senator from North Dakota talk about there being no money in section 920, and he is absolutely right, there is no money in section 920. But what this amendment does is set priorities. It says to the appropriators that the Congress--I think this amendment will be approved overwhelmingly--that the Congress and the Senate believe this is a program that needs more robust funding. This is a program that is a priority for the Senate and for folks on both sides of the aisle.

I appreciate the opportunity to come here to speak on this very important amendment. It sends a very clear signal that this is an area we need more resources devoted to. I thank the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from New Hampshire for allowing me the opportunity to speak at this time.

Amendment No. 3073

Madam President, I rise to talk about the Amtrak issue. This is a very important issue to me, to my State, to Philadelphia, and the 30th Street station. It is the second busiest train station nationally, with over 3.7 million boarding a year. Amtrak and the health of Amtrak is important. In addition, we have about 3,000 employees based in Pennsylvania who are employed by Amtrak. It not only makes a difference for us from the standpoint of our communities in southeastern Pennsylvania but the employment picture as well.

The continued health of Amtrak is important. That is why over the years you have supported efforts on the floor of the Senate to increase funding for Amtrak. I voted for appropriations bills as well as budget proposals.

I rise in opposition to the Byrd amendment. The chairman of the Finance Committee articulated it well--that in essence what Senator Byrd wants to do is increase taxes to pay for this amendment. I cannot support hurting the economy of this country by supporting something that is important from an appropriations standpoint. I think we need to set priorities in appropriations. We have done that in the past.

Amtrak has fared very well here in the Senate, and we have had support in the House to be able to get funding for this program. In fact, over the years we have increased funding. Last year the Senate version had $1.45 billion, which is obviously more than the $900 million in the current budget proposal. I will be offering an amendment to increase that funding from the $900 million which is in the bill right now to the $1.45 billion level and adding $550 million. I will do so through the section 920 account. I anticipate my colleague from North Dakota coming up and saying again that there is no money in the 920 account. He is correct; there is not money there, but there will be a very strong message sent by passing this amendment, if it is successful, to the appropriators of the importance of this program.

Again, I think we have seen that without raising the cap or without raising taxes, the Senate has been able to come up with a robust number for Amtrak which I will support within the context of a responsible budget. We have done it year after year, and we will continue to do that.

Amendment No. 3015

I call up my amendment No. 3015.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, Senator Specter is an original cosponsor of this amendment. Obviously there is no greater supporter of Amtrak out there than Senator Specter. We hope this amendment will be passed and the Byrd amendment will be defeated. But understand that the commitment of

Senator Specter and my commitment is that we will work through the appropriations process to make sure Amtrak is adequately funded in the appropriations process.

I think I have said all I need to say on the Amtrak issue.

I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Vitter and Senator Talent as cosponsors to my amendment No. 3050, which is increasing funding for the CDBG Program.

Mr. President, the amendment that was just offered by Senator Murray was defeated. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment which does not raise the cap but, in fact, expresses a strong sentiment, a strong bipartisan sentiment that the CDBG Program should be funded more robustly. It is at $1.3 billion. It is offset by the 920 account. But it does express a very important sentiment that this is a high-priority program and that the appropriators should allocate more resources than the President did in his budget recommendation.

Mr. President, do I have any time left on my amendment?

Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3015

Mr. President, this amendment does what the Byrd amendment does, except it doesn't raises taxes. It offsets the money from the 920 account. I would encourage Members to let their voices be heard in support of Amtrak funding to make sure that the Appropriations Committee understands that this is a continuing priority for the United States, and I ask for a ``yea'' vote.

Mr. President, I rise today to address the Dubai Ports World acquisition and the subsequent announcement to transfer operation of U.S. port terminals to a U.S. entity. Last week, my colleague from New York offered an amendment to S. 2349, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006. While the security of our ports is my foremost concern, especially as a Senator representing a State where one of the ports in question is located, I do not believe the time or the vehicle was appropriate for a vote on Senator Schumer's amendment. I have been a vocal critic of this transaction for weeks, but when my colleague's amendment was offered, Dubai Ports World had already resubmitted its application to the Committee on Foreign Investment, CFIUS. A second review of the transaction was pending. Furthermore, I had signed onto a bipartisan letter with Senator Schumer and eight other Members just the week before to the majority and minority leaders. In that letter, we expressed our desire to closely examine the facts that would be presented, and we retained our right to pursue legislative action after the review was completed should the outcome prove unsatisfactory.

Then, just last Friday, DP World announced their decision to transfer the U.S. port terminals acquired from Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company to a U.S. entity. While we are still seeking clarification of exactly what that means, my hope is that this decision will allay our concerns about this particular transaction. I expect a thorough review of this proposal by the appropriate agencies, and Congress assuredly has the will to act if concerns remain.

Should the immediate need for action disappear, Congress cannot ignore the underlying problems this acquisition has brought to light. First, we need to remain diligent in securing ports both domestically and abroad. Significant investments at foreign ports are critical. We cannot allow hazardous materials or weapons of mass destruction to enter our ports in the first place. By then, it could be too late. Second, Congress must undertake a comprehensive review of the CFIUS process. Chairman Shelby has already begun that process in the Banking Committee. I look forward to working with him and my colleagues to aggressively execute our oversight authority and expeditiously enact any reforms that may be necessary to ensure the safety and economic vitality of my State and this great Nation.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the above mentioned letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer remarks on legislation that I am introducing today here in the Senate.

This legislation concerns the need to release military documents and photographs recovered in Iraq and Afghanistan. Specifically, the bill requires the Director of National Intelligence to make publicly available on an Internet website documents captured in Afghanistan or Iraq during Operation Desert Storm, Operation Enduring Freedom, or Operation Iraqi Freedom.

In my conversations with President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, I urged that efforts to examine these documents and photographs be accelerated. With U.S. and Coalition forces actively engaged in Iraq, the analysis and release of these documents should be made a top priority within the Department of Defense.

Recently, I gave a speech at the Valley Forge Military Academy in Pennsylvania concerning ongoing military operations in Iraq and detailed why we must prevail. In my speech, I noted that U.S. and Coalition forces are fighting the forces of Islamic fascism and those who seek to overthrow the values and beliefs that civilized nations cherish. In short, this is a battle we cannot afford to lose.

By way of background, The Weekly Standard published several articles detailing a number of these documents and the information contained within them which ``connect the dots'' between Saddam Hussein and the training of Islamic terrorists. Among the points highlighted in a recent The Weekly Standard article:

The photographs and documents on Iraqi training camps come

from a collection of some 2 million ``exploitable items''

captured in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan. They include

handwritten notes, typed documents, audiotapes, videotapes,

compact discs, floppy discs, and computer hard drives . . .

Nearly three years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, only

50,000 of these 2 million ``exploitable items'' have been

thoroughly examined.

Many of the translated and analyzed documents were entered into a government database known as ``HARMONY.'' It is now 4 years since these documents were captured. I understand that previous requests to release information from the HARMONY database have been rejected or delayed. It is reasonable to assume that over the course of the last 4 years any actionable intelligence contained within these documents has already been exploited.

It is imperative that documents captured in Iraq which highlight the connections between Saddam Hussein's brutal regime and Islamic terrorists be released as soon as possible. These documents are increasingly necessary to help the American people understand both the reasons for our involvement in Iraq and the challenge of defending freedom and democracy.

However, in the interest of national security, the bill permits the Director of National Intelligence to withhold making a document publicly available--provided he informs the relevant congressional committees of the justification for not disclosing the document.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer remarks on legislation that I am introducing today here in the Senate.

This legislation concerns the need to release military documents and photographs recovered in Iraq and Afghanistan. Specifically, the bill requires the Director of National Intelligence to make publicly available on an Internet website documents captured in Afghanistan or Iraq during Operation Desert Storm, Operation Enduring Freedom, or Operation Iraqi Freedom.

In my conversations with President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, I urged that efforts to examine these documents and photographs be accelerated. With U.S. and Coalition forces actively engaged in Iraq, the analysis and release of these documents should be made a top priority within the Department of Defense.

Recently, I gave a speech at the Valley Forge Military Academy in Pennsylvania concerning ongoing military operations in Iraq and detailed why we must prevail. In my speech, I noted that U.S. and Coalition forces are fighting the forces of Islamic fascism and those who seek to overthrow the values and beliefs that civilized nations cherish. In short, this is a battle we cannot afford to lose.

By way of background, The Weekly Standard published several articles detailing a number of these documents and the information contained within them which ``connect the dots'' between Saddam Hussein and the training of Islamic terrorists. Among the points highlighted in a recent The Weekly Standard article:

The photographs and documents on Iraqi training camps come

from a collection of some 2 million ``exploitable items''

captured in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan. They include

handwritten notes, typed documents, audiotapes, videotapes,

compact discs, floppy discs, and computer hard drives . . .

Nearly three years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, only

50,000 of these 2 million ``exploitable items'' have been

thoroughly examined.

Many of the translated and analyzed documents were entered into a government database known as ``HARMONY.'' It is now 4 years since these documents were captured. I understand that previous requests to release information from the HARMONY database have been rejected or delayed. It is reasonable to assume that over the course of the last 4 years any actionable intelligence contained within these documents has already been exploited.

It is imperative that documents captured in Iraq which highlight the connections between Saddam Hussein's brutal regime and Islamic terrorists be released as soon as possible. These documents are increasingly necessary to help the American people understand both the reasons for our involvement in Iraq and the challenge of defending freedom and democracy.

However, in the interest of national security, the bill permits the Director of National Intelligence to withhold making a document publicly available--provided he informs the relevant congressional committees of the justification for not disclosing the document.

Mr. President, we have been trying to go back and forth. The last speaker was Senator Boxer. I think we have been trying to alternate back and forth.

Mr. President, I am going to talk about the bill, and then I will yield back to Senator Dodd to actually offer the amendment we are working on, was my intent. That was the plan.

Mr. President, I, too, rise to thank Senator Lott and Senator Dodd, as well as Senator Kyl and Senator Lieberman. They talked about how this process has been somewhat unique in the annals of recent Senate history and about how this process has worked now for the past month, a little over a month in a way that, as Senator Lott said, should be done more often around here, which is sitting down and having good, bipartisan discussions to try to come up with a consensus piece of legislation.

While obviously there will be lots of amendments, at least the foundation of this bill is one that included a lot of bipartisan input and, in fact, has features from both sides of the aisle and is as much a bipartisan bill, at least on a major bill, as has been brought to the floor in a long time. I thank the chairman and ranking member of the committees, in particular Senator McCain for his leadership on this issue, as well as others who participated in the bipartisan process, including Senator Feingold, Senator Pryor, Senator Obama, Senator Salazar, and others who have made contributions on the Democratic side; Senator Vitter, Senator Isakson on the Republican side, who have also been very involved in the process.

As a result of that process, we came up with a working document. I won't call it a consensus because there were Members who had varying points of view on a variety of these issues, but let's say that at the conclusion of our discussions we had a working draft that had broad support as a whole. At the same time, as you will see in the discussions and in the amendments we are going to have today, some wish to ratchet it up a little bit, make it a little tougher; others thought it might be a little too tough. But in the areas of concern, there was broad agreement on what those areas of concern are, and suggestions of approaches on how to deal with it.

I wish to go through the areas that we agreed needed to be addressed and what the general idea was in how to proceed with a lot of the things that are up here, which were foundational in the sense that we started with the McCain-Lieberman bill that Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman introduced a couple of months ago, and there was some tinkering to that legislation. Overall, the disclosure requirements in that legislation were universally embraced and adopted for disclosure of lobbyist contributions to Member PACs, and lobbyist disclosure of executive and congressional employment. All of those things were included, as well as others we have heard talked about on the floor.

Several things were not included: disclosure of contracts with State sponsors of terrorism. That is something I happen to believe should be included in the legislation, but so far we have had objections to that being included. I am not too sure I understand why but, nevertheless, it has not been included.

We suggested 30 days, not 60 days, to comply with the rules. That has not been included.

Higher penalties. The penalties were increased from $50,000 to $100,000. Many of us believe that is not sufficient as a deterrent for some who make a lot more than $50,000 or $100,000 around here on transactions. So we think a higher penalty sends a stronger signal, and I will be offering an amendment on that to increase the penalties up to $200,000. Again, it is up to $200,000 for breaking these rules, lobbyists breaking these rules.

One of the important things we brought to the table that was not in the underlying bill was disclosure of rule enforcement by the Secretary of the Senate and the U.S. Attorney. In other words, one of the concerns Members have and that the public has is, What sort of oversight is being done? Are there any actions being taken? What this would require is that when there, in fact, is an action taken on the part of the committee, and it has been referred to a U.S. Attorney for prosecution--not that particular case, but at least the number of cases that have been referred is made public so we know the level of activity. Not the specific charge, because we don't know whether the U.S. Attorney will actually bring a charge, but we at least know the number.

There are several other things we did in our bipartisan discussions: ban registered lobbyists who are former Members from the Senate floor; no staff contact with lobbyists who are a member of the family, which is an amendment I successfully offered in committee, in the Rules Committee; and the earmark transparency, something Senator Lott and Senator Feinstein have worked with, and obviously Senator McCain. There will be differences. We passed something out of the Rules Committee. There will be amendments to try to expand this provision, maybe contract this provision, modify it; but the idea was developed and supported by a bipartisan group.

Another thing Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman put in their bill, which was very important that we brought to the table, was the idea of an SRO, a self-regulatory organization that many professional organizations use to police their own ranks. While we can pass laws and we can pass rules that try to govern the lobbyist profession, there are a lot of things within the profession that need to be upgraded, whether it is fees or whether it is professional ethics, and there is not a good body out there that does that. There certainly isn't any kind of self-regulatory body that does that. We think it is vitally important to send a message from the Congress to the folks who make a living petitioning their government to clean up their own house, and particularly in greater detail than what the Congress could or should do with respect to the practices, the internal practices of lobbying firms and lobbyists.

I think this is a very important suggestion, something I felt very strongly about, and I appreciate Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins for including it in their legislation.

This is the final chart, which again shows the consensus. You can see the checkmarks here again, which are areas that are already included in the bill that were part of the bipartisan discussion, to extend the lobbying ban for Members and senior staff from 1 to 2 years for Members and included more senior staff of Members in a separate amendment. Both were discussed and supported broadly in our discussions.

This is something I also felt very strongly about: Members not being able to negotiate for private sector employment while they are a member of the Senate. Then we put in the date of the election of your successor as the date you can then freely discuss employment opportunities for after your life here in the Senate. We have an exception. There needs to be an exception. If something happens, a personal emergency in the family, or something comes up where you feel you have to leave the Senate for some reason, the opportunity to have those discussions simply must be disclosed within 3 days of having those discussions. Again, we think there needs to be an escape hatch for those kinds of contingencies.

Travel was a very big point of discussion and will be a point of discussion here on the floor of the Senate. Privately funded travel must be preapproved by Ethics, be of educational value, have little or no R and R--rest and recreational value, disclosure of the lobbyist's involvement in the trip, as well as all activities reported after the trip. In other words, you have to file a comprehensive report of what you did, not just what you planned to do.

The area that was not done and that I will be offering an amendment on with Senator McCain and Senator Feingold is having to do with the Members and Federal candidates paying a fair market value for the cost of corporate travel. I know this is very controversial, particularly for Members from larger States using a private aircraft in getting around. But as we will discuss later with Senator McCain and Senator Feingold on the floor, we believe this is an area that needs to be addressed. This is clearly a subsidy. I understand, and I think we all understand, this will probably require higher amounts of money in our accounts to be able to pay for these costs as we travel around our States that now are, in a sense, subsidized by the private sector. But I believe this is a very important transparency issue.

The final issue is the mandatory disclosure of travel on private charter flights by Members as well as Federal candidates, so this is something that we did.

The last thing that is on the agenda, and then I will turn it over to the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, is the gift ban. Now we do have a gift ban in this bill having to do with lobbyists. Lobbyists are no longer allowed to give any gift of any value to Members. The one area that is excluded from that is meals. To be clear, what the Rules Committee did was make a change to current law which says, you are allowed to purchase a meal for a Member of Congress or his staff of up to almost $50. The Rules Committee said you have to now report it if it is above $10. That, I think, is worse than the current law, in my opinion, because it sets up a situation where Members--I can tell you if this is the law that would go into place, I would tell my staff, and certainly I would never have a meal with a Member, because it creates the impression first that you have to report it, and of course any activity that occurred with respect to that lobbyist and your office or legislation you voted on or campaign activities would be tied to this particular event which, of course, may or may not have had anything to do with that particular event, but it creates, I think, an untenable situation. I think the effect of Senator Lott's suggestion would be, in fact, a ban on meals, so if that would be the effect of it, let's do it.

So I have offered an amendment. Senator Dodd came to the floor with the same idea. We have spoken. We have decided to jointly offer an amendment that would ban all meals from registered lobbyists to Members of Congress and their staff. That is the amendment Senator Dodd will be teeing up here in a moment. Again, we filed virtually identical amendments.

I am happy to yield to the Senator from Connecticut because of the fine work he has done to be the lead sponsor on this amendment. We need to work together and get this done because the current situation in this bill, in my opinion, is simply untenable and is a potential trap for the unsuspecting, which I would not like to see be visited on any Member of the Senate.

With that, again, I want to congratulate all of those who were involved. I think you see that the bipartisan process we worked on for several weeks yielded the basis--the basis of the bill we have before us has yielded a situation where I think most of the amendments that are going to be offered are going to be offered in a bipartisan fashion because discussions were actively underway that did have sincere collaboration. As a result of that, I think you are going to see a lot of the effort being put forward today in a bipartisan fashion. I am pleased to be able to kick that off with the Senator from Connecticut on the issue of not allowing lobbyists to buy meals for either Members or their staffs here in the Senate.

Mr. President, I yield the floor for the Senator from Connecticut.

Madam President, I echo the comments made by the Senator from Connecticut. He covered all the salient points. I did so earlier in a broader discussion on the bill. This really is a tripwire. The current language could cause all sorts of problems for Members and staff. The better policy is to simply ban this activity. That does not mean that you can't go out with people who aren't lobbyists, and if you have a constituent who has come into town and you can buy them dinner or lunch and they can buy you dinner or lunch, that is all well and good but subject to the gift limits that are in place right now. But when you are in the business of lobbying Members of Congress, as the Senator from Connecticut said, it does without question present the perception that there is some undue influence involved with the purchase of a meal.

I understand that we are talking about small meals as well as large. But the bottom line is, that perception is

not helpful to the image of this body. Perception and reality should be a concern of ours because public confidence in this institution and those of us in it is vitally important to the success of our democracy. This is an important measure. It is a small measure but it is important to get it accomplished. I hope we can do so by consent or by voice vote. I don't see anybody else on the floor. I don't know if the Senator from Mississippi wants to speak on this amendment, but I would like to suggest that we agree to this by voice vote and then have the Senator from Oklahoma, who has been incredibly patient in waiting to offer his amendment, be given the right to do so.

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

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

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

My understanding was that the Santorum-Feingold-McCain- Lieberman amendment was by consent, next in line, is that not the case?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an issue that resonates with all Americans, especially today--a day when the entire world celebrates International Women's Day, It is important to raise the issue of the oppression of women, in hope that public awareness will change these practices and this prejudice.

I would like to specifically raise awareness of the plight of women in the Islamic Republic of Iran. In Iran, women are considered to be worth a half of a man and have extremely limited rights. It is the policy of the Government of Iran to deny women the opportunities that men are afforded.

The current Iranian Government has rescinded laws that were implemented prior to the revolution regarding women's legal rights. This initiative against women's rights was justified by an edict that laws in conflict with Sharia Law had to be abolished. The edict resulted in a new set of restrictive laws for women.

Women in Iran are severely oppressed, and their ability to speak out against current conditions is limited. While they can speak out, they face certain punishment for doing so. There are many examples of Iranian women, young and old, who have spoken out against the lack of opportunity for women in Iran. For example, Elham Afroutan is a 19- year-old Iranian journalist who was arrested a few months ago because of an op-ed she wrote in a newspaper. She is now imprisoned in Tehran, and it has been reported that she has been brutally raped and tortured. Elham's parents have only heard from her a couple of times, and the Iranian Government has refused to give any updates on her condition.

Also of importance is the case of Zahra Kazemi, the 54-year-old Iranian and Canadian journalist, who was arrested for photographing a demonstration outside Tehran's Evin prison. It is reported that while imprisoned, Zahra was tortured, raped, and later murdered. The Iranian Government later claimed that she committed suicide. The doctor who examined Zahra's body later determined that she died as a result of the beating and torture that she endured while imprisoned. After Zahra's family demanded an autopsy of her body, it was later discovered that the Iranian Government had injected Zahra's body with various chemicals so as to destroy her body and any evidence against her attackers.

This oppression of Iranian women, and all women around the world, must end. Never should a woman feel afraid to walk out of her home, speak up, or voice her opinion. Never should a woman have less of an opportunity than a man.

People around the world today, on International Women's Day, must unite behind one cause--equality, justice, and opportunity for all women.