Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that should, and could, have been law 1 year ago, the Military Family Support Act. This bill provides modest but significant relief for the families of the brave American soldiers deployed overseas. I was disappointed that, after passing the Senate last year as an amendment to the fiscal year 2007 Defense Department authorization bill, this provision was removed in conference. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Casey.

As part of the predeployment process, military personnel with dependent children or other dependent family members designate a caregiver for their dependents. Dependents may be children, elderly parents, an ill sibling; anyone who requires care. These caregivers act in the deployed personnel's place to provide care during the period of deployment. The caregiver could be a spouse, parent, sibling, or other responsible adult who is capable of caring, and willing to care, for the dependents in question.

The bill that I am introducing today, the Military Family Support Act, would create two programs to provide additional leave options for persons who have been designated as caregivers. The bill would require the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, to create a program under which Federal employees who are designated as caregivers could use accrued annual or sick leave, leave bank benefits, and other leave available to them under title 5 for purposes directly relating to or resulting from their designation as a caregiver.

The second program would be administered by the Department of Labor for private sector employees. The Department would create a voluntary program, allowing private sector companies to create similar programs for their employees. Many companies across the country are already working with employees to provide support when an employee or a family member of an employee is called to active duty. I commend these companies for their compassion and understanding, and I hope that this program would expand such options to more workers.

Lastly, this bill would require a report from the Government Accountability Office evaluating both the OPM and voluntary private sector program. If the report demonstrates that the program has helped military families, which I believe it will, Congress may act to expand the programs or make them permanent.

I want to be clear that the legislation I am introducing today specifically exempts Family Medical Leave Act leave from the types of leave that can be used by designated caregivers under this legislation. Last Congress, I introduced legislation to expand the FMLA to cover leave for designated caregivers. That legislation, however, met with opposition from some Members who object to the FMLA itself. While I continue to believe that this opposition is misguided and that family members of deployed servicemembers should be able to take leave under the FMLA, I have drafted this compromise measure to address those concerns.

This legislation has been endorsed by the National Military Family Association, the National Partnership for Women and Families, and the Military Officers Association of America.

In small towns and big cities all over this country, family members of deployed servicemembers are struggling to care for their children without their spouses' help. In addition, many servicemembers care for elderly parents and this responsibility often falls to a sibling or spouse when that servicemember is deployed abroad. While we may not be able to promise the safe return of each one of these brave men and women, we can provide this modest relief to their families here at home. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, later this week, Somalia's fragile Transitional Federal Government, also known as the TFG, is expected to convene a National Reconciliation Conference originally intended to negotiate genuine power-sharing arrangements, establish a credible political process, and prevent Somalia from descending back into chaos and lawlessness.

Unfortunately, this conference has been postponed again--for the third time. Equally disappointing is the failure of the TFG to take the critical steps needed to broaden its base and ensure genuine negotiations occur when, or if, the conference actually takes place.

I have been watching Somalia closely for quite some time and I am deeply concerned that the small window of opportunity we saw earlier this year is closing quickly--if it has not already closed. To date, the power struggle between the Ethiopian-backed TFG and various clan- based and extremist militias in Mogadishu runs parallel to a brutal crackdown by Ethiopian and Somali troops that led to enormous civilian deaths and displacement. The increasing prevalence of suicide bombings and other guerilla tactics is a serious setback for Somalis, and for our own national security interests on the Horn.

The United States should be encouraging and supporting efforts to facilitate a government in Somalia that is widely perceived--internally and externally--as legitimate. Unfortunately, this effort is complicated by the Aministration's flawed and self-defeating approach to counterterrorism. By bringing long-term stability to Somalia, we can help root out global terrorists who thrive on instability and weak or failed governments. Pursuing individual terrorists is not a substitute for addressing the conditions that allow safe havens to persist.

There is no quick and easy answer to Somalia's problems. But there are a few things we can, and must, do better if Somalia is not to descend further into a bastion of instability with potentially dire consequences for our national security and that country's future. We must redouble our efforts and work with international and regional communities--and in particular with the Ethiopians--to ensure this National Reconciliation Conference not only occurs, but that it brings together a broad range of actors to create a framework for a government that is capable and committed to overcoming divisive clan dynamics, protecting human rights, and isolating and eliminating elements of extremism.

The United States has been forthcoming with financial resources for this conference, as newly appointed Special Envoy to Somalia Ambassador John Yates recently reported. Indeed, we are supplying half of the conference's budget through the United Nations Development Program. These resources are significant, and while I encourage other donors to step up to the plate before it is too late, financial assistance is not the only deficit Somalia's political project faces.

Equally worrisome is the lack of consistent messages from the international community as to what this conference is expected to achieve. I am concerned that the focus on getting the conference up and running--while critical--has nonetheless sidelined the need for it to produce the blueprint--the blueprint--for rebuilding Somalia.

Along with appointing a new diplomat and providing substantial funds, this administration, as well as the broader international community, needs to set clear expectations for the TFG to make sure recent history in that country is not repeated.

It is important to note that these are only the latest efforts to cobble together a viable political path for Somalia. Over the past decade, there have been approximately 14 other similar initiatives, all of which have failed. If the fragile political space created by the TFG closes, we are going to be stuck back at square one with the same disastrous results we have been dealing with for more than 10 years.

The upcoming reconciliation conference is only one benchmark of steps forward for the TFG. It is critical that all Somali stakeholders are included and that they own the process, that international organizations are invited to observe and offer advice, and that an outcome document laying out a roadmap for a sustained and pervasive process is produced.

Even if this public event meets all these goals--which remains far from clear--to be truly successful, it must also set the stage for what will be needed down the road, including the restoration of infrastructure and institutions required in a functioning state, the provision of services and security to citizens, and the weaving of Somalia's complex social fabric into a viable civil society.

The road to peace and security in Somalia is long and riddled with obstacles, but we must not stray from the goal. This most recent postponement illustrates the consequences of insufficient influence and inadequate policy coordination by the U.S. and the international community.

Accordingly, we must strive to produce a cohesive policy and effective action by clarifying our objectives, coordinating closely with our allies, and creating benchmarks with consequences. The United States and others--especially Ethiopia--must use whatever leverage they still possess to demand and work toward demonstrable progress towards a sustainable political solution for Somalia.

Mr. President, I certainly thank the Senator from Washington for her courtesy in letting me go first.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to join the majority leader in marking a solemn milestone in the war in Iraq. Three thousand five hundred members of the armed services have died fighting in Iraq. Like those before them who died serving their country, those 3,500 men and women have served honorably. We are all indebted to them for their courage and patriotism, as we are indebted to the 25,950 troops who have been wounded.

It has been just under a year since the 2,500th U.S. servicemember died in Iraq. With the toll of this war continuing to mount, particularly since the President decided to escalate our involvement, we must redouble our efforts to change course in Iraq. We owe it to the troops serving in Iraq. These brave men and women signed up to defend their country, not to police an Iraqi civil war. Many of these individuals chose to join the Armed Forces as a result of the horrific attacks of September 11. Yet they have found themselves fighting in a country that had nothing to do with those attacks. As they endure untold hardship in Iraq, al-Qaida and its extremist network are rebuilding in Afghanistan, northern Africa and around the globe.

As I am sure my colleagues have done, I have been to the memorial services honoring the dead, I have handed the wounded their Purple Hearts, I have spoken to the parents whose children have returned from war with brain injuries they will live with for the rest of their lives. These experiences are a constant reminder of the responsibility we have to the brave individuals who have volunteered to defend their country. We have a duty to ensure that when they are asked to fight on our behalf, it is not on the basis of false premises and shifting rationales. We have a duty not to put them in harm's way when there is no exit strategy. Most importantly, we have a duty to bring them home because we know there is no military solution to the war they are fighting.

We must help the Iraqi people rebuild their country and we must work to build the broad international coalition that is needed to help bring peace and stability to Iraq. But our servicemembers in Iraq have been asked to do the impossible--they have been asked to resolve political and other differences by military force. The Congress has the power to change this misguided policy by forcing the President to redeploy U.S. troops. Measures that express the need for a policy shift, and concern for the well-being of the troops, may be well-intended but they do not go far enough and they will not help the troops. Only binding legislation requiring redeployment will prevent further brave servicemembers from losing their lives for this administration's failed and self-defeating policies.

Many soldiers serving in Iraq have written to me to express their support for my efforts to end this war. It is with them in mind that I will continue working to end this tragic mistake.

Mr. President, today I honor the extraordinary life of Robert M. La Follette, Sr. This week, on June 14, people around my home State of Wisconsin will mark the 152nd anniversary of La Follette's birth. Throughout his life, La Follette was revered for his tireless service to the people of Wisconsin and to the people of the United States. His dogged, full-steam-ahead approach to his life's work earned him the nickname ``Fighting Bob.''

Robert Marion La Follette, Sr., was born on June 14, 1855, in Primrose, a small town southwest of Madison in Dane County. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1879 and, after being admitted to the State bar, began his long career in public service as Dane County district attorney.

La Follette was elected to the House of Representatives in 1884, and he served three terms as a Member of that body, where he was a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

After losing his campaign for reelection in 1890, La Follette returned to Wisconsin and continued to serve the people of my State as a judge. Upon his exit from Washington, DC, a reporter wrote, La Follette ``is popular at home, popular with his colleagues, and popular in the House. He is so good a fellow that even his enemies like him.''

He was elected the 20th Governor of Wisconsin in 1900. He served in that office until 1906, when he stepped down in order to serve the people of Wisconsin in the Senate, where he remained until his death in 1925.

As a founder of the national progressive movement, La Follette championed progressive causes as Governor of Wisconsin and in the Congress. As Governor, he advanced an agenda that included the country's first workers' compensation system, direct election of Senators, and railroad rate and tax reforms. Collectively, these reforms would become known as the ``Wisconsin Idea.'' As Governor, La Follette also supported cooperation between the State and the University of Wisconsin.

His terms in the House of Representatives and the Senate were spent fighting for women's rights, working to limit the power of monopolies, and opposing pork-barrel legislation. La Follette also advocated electoral reforms, and he brought his support of the direct election of Senators to this body. His efforts were brought to fruition with the ratification of the 17th amendment in 1913. Fighting Bob also worked tirelessly to hold the Government accountable and was a key figure in exposing the Teapot Dome scandal.

La Follette earned the respect of such notable Americans as Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington and Harriet Tubman Upton for making civil rights one of his trademark issues. At a speech before the 1886 graduating class of Howard University, La Follette said:

We are one people, one by truth, one almost by blood. Our

lives run side by side, our ashes rest in the same soil.

[Seize] the waiting world of opportunity. Separatism is

snobbish stupidity, it is supreme folly, to talk of non-

contact, or exclusion!

La Follette ran for President three times, twice as a Republican and once on the Progressive ticket. In 1924, as the Progressive candidate for President, La Follette garnered more than 17 percent of the popular vote and carried the State of Wisconsin.

La Follette's years of public service were not without controversy. In 1917, he filibustered a bill to allow the arming of U.S. merchant ships in response to a series of German submarine attacks. His filibuster was successful in blocking passage of this bill in the closing hours of the 64th Congress. Soon after, La Follette was one of only six Senators who voted against U.S. entry into World War I.

Fighting Bob was outspoken in his belief that the right to free speech did not end when war began. In the fall of 1917, La Follette gave a speech about the war in Minnesota, and he was misquoted in press reports as saying that he supported the sinking of the Lusitania. The Wisconsin State Legislature condemned his supposed statement as treason, and some of La Follette's Senate colleagues introduced a resolution to expel him. In response to this action, he delivered his seminal floor address, ``Free Speech in Wartime,'' on October 16, 1917. If you listen closely, you can almost hear his strong voice echoing through this chamber as he said:

Mr. President, our government, above all others, is founded

on the right of the people freely to discuss all matters

pertaining to their government, in war not less than in

peace, for in this government, the people are the rulers in

war no less than in peace.

Of the expulsion petition filed against him, La Follette said:

I am aware, Mr. President, that in pursuance of this

general campaign of vilification and attempted intimidation,

requests from various individuals and certain organizations

have been submitted to the Senate for my expulsion from this

body, and that such requests have been referred to and

considered by one of the Committees of the Senate.

If I alone had been made the victim of these attacks, I

should not take one moment of the Senate's time for their

consideration, and I believe that other Senators who have

been unjustly and unfairly assailed, as I have been, hold the

same attitude upon this that I do. Neither the clamor of the

mob nor the voice of power will ever turn me by the breadth

of a hair from the course I mark out for myself, guided by

such knowledge as I can obtain and controlled and directed by

a solemn conviction of right and duty.

This powerful speech led to a Senate investigation of whether La Follette's conduct constituted treason. In 1919, following the end of World War I, the Senate dropped its investigation and reimbursed La Follette for the legal fees he incurred as a result of the expulsion petition and corresponding investigation. This incident is indicative of Fighting Bob's commitment to his ideals and of his tenacious spirit.

La Follette died on June 18, 1925, in Washington, DC, while serving Wisconsin in this body. His daughter noted, ``His passing was mysteriously peaceful for one who had stood so long on the battle line.'' Mourners visited the Wisconsin Capitol to view his body and paid respects in a crowd nearing 50,000 people. La Follette's son, Robert M. La Follette, Jr., was appointed to his father's seat and went on to be elected in his own right and to serve in this body for more than 20 years, following the progressive path blazed by his father.

La Follette has been honored a number of times for his unwavering commitment to his ideals and for his service to the people of Wisconsin and of the United States.

During the 109th Congress, I was proud to support Senate passage of a bill introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin that named the post office at 215 Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard in Madison in La Follette's honor. I commend Congresswoman Baldwin for her efforts to pass that bill, and I am pleased she is introducing House companion measures of the legislation I am introducing today in the Senate.

The Library of Congress recognized La Follette in 1985 by naming the Congressional Research Service reading room in the Madison Building in honor of both Fighting Bob and his son, Robert M. La Follette, Jr., for their shared commitment to the development of a legislative research service to support the Congress. In his autobiography, Fighting Bob noted that, as Governor of Wisconsin, he:

made it a . . . policy to bring all the reserves of knowledge

and inspiration of the university more fully to the service

of the people. . . . Many of the university staff are now in

state service, and a bureau of investigation and research

established as a legislative reference library . . . has

proved of the greatest assistance to the legislature in

furnishing the latest and best thought of the advanced

students of government in this and other countries.

He went on to call this service ``a model which the federal government and ultimately every state in the union will follow.'' Thus, the legislative reference service that La Follette created in Madison served as the basis for his work to create the Congressional Research Service at the Library of Congress.

The La Follette Reading Room was dedicated on March 5, 1985, the 100th anniversary of Fighting Bob being sworn in for his first term as a Member of Congress.

Across this magnificent Capitol in National Statuary Hall, Fighting Bob is forever immortalized in white marble, still proudly representing the State of Wisconsin. His statue resides in the Old House Chamber, now known as National Statuary Hall, among those of other notable figures who have made their marks in American history. One of the few seated statues is that of Fighting Bob. Though he is sitting, he is shown with one foot forward, and one hand on the arm of his chair, as if he is about to leap to his feet and begin a robust speech.

When then-Senator John F. Kennedy's five-member Special Committee on the Senate Reception Room chose La Follette as one of the ``Five Outstanding Senators'' whose portraits would hang outside of this chamber in the Senate reception room, he was described as being a ``ceaseless battler for the underprivileged'' and a ``courageous independent.'' Today, his painting still hangs just outside this chamber, where it bears witness to the proceedings of this body--and, perhaps, challenges his successors here to continue fighting for the social and Government reforms he championed.

Mr. President, to honor Robert M. La Follette, Sr., during the week of the anniversary of his birth, today I am introducing two pieces of legislation. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the senior Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl; the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy; and the junior Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown.

I am introducing a bill that would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins to commemorate Fighting Bob's life and legacy. The second bill that I am introducing today would authorize the President to posthumously award a gold medal on behalf of Congress to Robert M. La Follette, Sr. The

minting of a commemorative coin and the awarding of the Congressional Gold Medal would be fitting tributes to the memory of Robert M. La Follette, Sr., and to his deeply held beliefs and long record of service to his State and to his country. I hope that my colleagues will support these proposals.

Let us never forget Robert M. La Follette, Sr.'s character, his integrity, his deep commitment to progressive causes, and his unwillingness to waver from doing what he thought was right. The Senate has known no greater champion of the common man and woman, no greater enemy of corruption and cronyism, than ``Fighting Bob'' La Follette, and it is an honor to speak in the same Chamber and serve the same great State as he did.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to honor the memory of Philip Kaiser, a dear family friend who was also an outstanding public servant. In a career that spanned four decades, he served as an ambassador to four countries and as Assistant Secretary of Labor for International Affairs. He was a man of tremendous accomplishment who was sought out by U.S. Presidents, from Truman to Carter, for his unparalleled diplomatic skills.

While he served as Ambassador to Senegal in the early 1960s, he brokered a critical agreement with the Senegalese President that prevented Soviet aircraft from refueling there during the Cuban Missile Crisis, in case the Soviets tried to use aircraft to break the blockade. Later, when he served as Ambassador to Hungary during the Carter Administration, he negotiated the return of a powerful national symbol in Hungary, the Crown of St. Stephen, to the Hungarians after it had been held for safekeeping in the United States after World War II.

Ambassador Kaiser received his undergraduate degree at the University of Wisconsin and then studied at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. Those experiences undoubtedly influenced his career, and, as it turns out, they influenced my career as well. It was because Philip Kaiser went to the University of Wisconsin that he met my father, Leon Feingold. They became, and always remained, good friends. As I grew up, I got to know Ambassador Kaiser, and heard so much about him from my father. As a young man with an interest in public service and foreign affairs, I looked up to Ambassador Kaiser. In fact, one of the reasons I applied for a Rhodes Scholarship was because Ambassador Kaiser had been a Rhodes Scholar himself.

I am proud to have known Ambassador Kaiser and proud of his connection to my family. I am deeply saddened by his passing, and my thoughts are with his wife, his children and grandchildren, and his many friends during this difficult time. He left a lasting mark on this country and the world, and it is an honor to pay tribute to his memory today.

Mr. President, I will vote in favor of cloture on the motion to proceed. After months of troubling and even shocking disclosures about the U.S. Attorney firings and the politicization of the Department of Justice, it is important for the Senate to go on record on the question of whether the Attorney General should continue in his post. This vote may end up being our only vote on this matter, but since the resolution itself is nonbinding, this vote, though procedural in nature, is sufficient to inform the Nation exactly what the Senate's position is. Those who vote against cloture plainly are comfortable with the Attorney General remaining right where he is. Those of us who vote for cloture are not.

In January 2005, I voted against Alberto Gonzales to be the Attorney General because I was not convinced he would put the rule of law, and the interests of the country, above those of the President and the administration. Unfortunately, those concerns have been realized over and over. It is not just the U.S. Attorneys scandal. In recent months, the Department's Inspector General issued a very troubling report on National Security Letters. The Attorney General, of course, had assured us that the Department could be trusted to respect civil liberties in its exercise of the unprecedented powers it was given in the Patriot Act.

Perhaps the Attorney General's biggest failure concerns the warrantless wiretapping program. When he came before the Judiciary Committee for his confirmation hearing, he gave very misleading testimony to a question I asked concerning whether the position the administration had taken with respect to torture might also allow it to authorize warrantless wiretaps. He called my question ``hypothetical.'' Just less than a year later, we found out that the administration had in fact taken precisely that position for years.

His appearance before the Judiciary Committee last year to discuss the legal justification of the wiretapping program was one of the weakest and least convincing I have ever seen. And the recent testimony of former Deputy Attorney General James Comey concerning Mr. Gonzales's bedside visit to former Attorney General John Ashcroft raises serious questions about his veracity at that hearing. It also raises questions about his ethics, and, once again, his respect for the rule of law.

But it is not just his commitment to the rule of law and his willingness to tell the truth to Congress that troubles me about this Attorney General's tenure. At his most recent appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss the U.S. Attorney firings, I questioned him about whether he did some of the most basic things that you would expect a manager to do if he delegated to his staff a major project like deciding which of 93 presidential appointees to top law enforcement positions to fire. He could not recall doing any of them. We know that the Attorney General was involved in this process and made the final decisions on the firing plan, but he can't seem to remember much beyond that, even though it was only a few months ago that this all took place. He has failed in a very significant way. He should resign.

With the snowballing problems at the Justice Department, it could hardly be more plain that the Attorney General has lost the confidence of Congress and the public. As Mr. Comey said in response to my written question: ``This entire affair has harmed the Department and its reputation.'' The Department of Justice should always be above reproach. The AG should step down for the good of the country. Since he will not, the Senate should express its judgment, on behalf of the American people.

Mr. President, over the last few weeks, the Senate has considered an issue that inspires strong feelings all around--the need for immigration reform. While the bill we were considering has many flaws, I am disappointed that some Members of this body decided to talk it to death. I voted to move this bill forward because Congress should act on this issue, and because I am hopeful that the bill's flaws can be cured during the next stages of the legislative process.

Despite our differences in approach, all of us in this Chamber agree on three core principles that form the bedrock of any comprehensive immigration reform. First, we must do something about the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants who live and work in the shadows. The status quo is simply unacceptable. It harms citizens and noncitizens alike and makes us less safe as a nation. Second, we must take the necessary steps to prevent illegal immigration in the future so that we do not find ourselves back here in the same position 20 years from now. And, third, we must establish a system that allows people who can make valuable contributions to our society--by, for example, strengthening families or performing jobs that cannot be filled by Americans--to enter the country legally. These goals must be accomplished in a way that is consistent with our values as a nation. The fundamental problem with this bill, as it now stands, is that it fails to accomplish these objectives; in fact, it contains several provisions that go directly against these objectives.

With respect to the 12 million undocumented immigrants, the bill held genuine promise when it came to the floor. As both the President and the Secretary of Homeland Security have said, mass deportation is not a viable option, nor is amnesty for those who have broken the law. As introduced on the Senate floor, this legislation would have required those who are here illegally to come forward, pay hefty fines, pay taxes, learn English and civics, work, and wait in the back of the line--before earning the privilege of permanent resident status. That would have been a workable solution.

Unfortunately, this linchpin of the bill was undercut by the Senate's adoption of an amendment offered by Senator Cornyn. The amendment removed critical confidentiality provisions that would have protected applicants for legalization from being deported if their applications were denied. The problem with this approach is that few undocumented immigrants will even apply for legalization without this protection. They will stay in the shadows, and we will be exactly where we are now. If this bill ultimately moves forward, it is vitally important that these confidentiality provisions be included in the House bill and retained in conference; otherwise, the bill will defeat its own main purpose.

I also hope to see progress on other provisions that threaten to undermine the very purpose of the earned legalization program. I am particularly concerned about requiring undocumented immigrants to leave the United States in order to apply for permanent residence. Although the bill guarantees their reentry, this ``touch-back'' requirement creates a major practical obstacle for many immigrants, especially those who come from far-flung regions of the globe. Moreover, many undocumented immigrants--who may be receiving their information about the legislation from unreliable sources, or who may face language barriers in understanding its provisions--will be unwilling to leave the U.S. for fear that they will not be allowed to return. Again, a bill that creates a legalization program but discourages immigrants from applying for legalization gets us nowhere.

Another vital component of comprehensive immigration reform is a system that allows employers to turn to foreign labor as a last resort when they genuinely cannot find American workers to do the job. Permitting these workers to enter the country legally furthers the second core principle of comprehensive reform: avoiding a future flow of undocumented workers who would otherwise create a new underground economy. Unlike the bill we passed last year, however, the bill the Senate considered this year has no meaningful path to permanent residence for immigrants in the temporary worker program. It requires workers in that program to interrupt their employment every 2 years and leave the U.S. for a period of 1 year, and it prohibits most of these workers from bringing their families to the U.S. Taken together, these provisions are a recipe for a massive new flow of illegal immigration-- once again defeating the very purpose the program was meant to serve.

I am also concerned that the temporary worker program contains insufficient protections for U.S. and foreign workers. I was pleased at the success of the Durbin-Grassley amendment, which strengthened the bill's requirement that employers recruit and hire U.S. workers before hiring temporary foreign workers. But that protection is simply not sufficient. The single best mechanism for enforcement of labor protections is a path to permanent residence. Knowing that foreign workers cannot simply be used up and thrown away prevents employers from exploiting them. That, in turn, takes away the incentive to hire foreign workers over U.S. citizens and ensures that working conditions for all workers don't sink to a lowest common denominator. It is a critical protection that is lacking from this bill.

Because I believe the temporary worker program as currently drafted will foster illegal immigration and will not sufficiently protect U.S. and foreign workers, I voted for Senator Bingaman's amendment to limit the scope of the program and Senator Dorgan's amendment to sunset the program in 5 years. Unless and until the structural problems with the program are fixed--and I hope they will be--we should not be putting in place a permanent program of the magnitude contemplated by the original bill.

Another serious flaw in the bill is its inclusion of multiple ``triggers''--enforcement requirements that must be fulfilled before other critical reforms could begin. While these provisions are designed to further the second core goal of immigration reform--preventing a future flow of illegal immigration--they will have exactly the opposite effect. History tells us that an ``enforcement-only'' approach simply doesn't work: the probability of catching an illegal immigrant has fallen over the past two decades from 33 percent to 5 percent, despite the fact that

we have tripled the number of border agents and increased the enforcement budget tenfold. True border security requires both increased enforcement measures and the creation of adequate legal channels for immigration, including programs to bring needed foreign workers into the U.S. and to allow undocumented immigrants who pass background checks to earn legal status. These measures allow us to separate those who are here to work and contribute to our communities from terrorists and others who pose a serious threat to this Nation, so that our immigration enforcement agents can focus their efforts in the right place. Postponing these measures--as this bill does--makes us less safe, not more.

The bill's solution to the third challenge of immigration reform-- shaping the contours of legal immigration--is a radical shift away from family reunification. That solution is not consistent with the core values of this Nation. In the past, our immigration laws have acknowledged that our country and our communities are stronger when families are united. But under this bill, it will be much harder for U.S. citizens and legal immigrants to be reunited with parents, siblings, and adult children. Some of my colleagues argued that this shift in policy is a necessary step toward embracing a ``merit-based'' system of immigration. But I believe there is a great deal of merit in keeping families together. And I don't believe that bringing people with useful skills to this country can only be accomplished at the expense of family unity.

We had the opportunity to do something about the bill's antifamily provisions. Along with Senators Menendez and Obama, I cosponsored two amendments: one that would sunset the so-called ``merit-based'' system in 5 years, and one that would reallocate points within the merit-based system to place more value on family ties. The first amendment failed, while the Senate has not yet had the opportunity to vote on the second. Other amendments would have improved this aspect of the bill, but they fell victim to points of order, and we were prevented from voting on them. So we are left with a system that values 3 years of U.S. employment more than the relationship between a brother and sister.

Beyond these much debated aspects of the bill, I am also deeply concerned by a little-discussed provision that would allow the Department of Homeland Security to detain several different categories of immigrants indefinitely. These immigrants may effectively be given a lifetime jail sentence, even though they have committed no crime for which such a sentence could be imposed by judge or jury. There is already a provision in our existing immigrations laws under which the Government may indefinitely detain any immigrant who is suspected of terrorism or whose release would threaten national security. The bill goes far beyond that, even allowing the Government to detain--forever-- immigrants who have never been suspected, let alone convicted, of any crime. That does nothing to make us safer, and it goes against everything this country stands for.

A similar challenge to our core values was presented by an amendment offered by Senator Cornyn. The amendment would have allowed the Government to deny citizenship to legal immigrants based on secret evidence and without any opportunity for review. It would have required the mandatory deportation of several new categories of immigrants without any individualized determination of whether such deportation was appropriate. And it would have doomed the earned legalization program with provisions that would make most applicants ineligible. In short, the amendment put forward a scattershot approach that would have penalized immigrants who pose no threat to us and stripped them of crucial due process rights. Fortunately, Senator Kennedy offered us an alternative that responsibly and effectively targets the small proportion of immigrants who threaten the safety of our communities. His amendment will ensure that immigrants who have committed serious crimes not fully covered by existing immigration laws, including firearms offenses, domestic violence, child abuse, or felony drunk driving, cannot come to this country. I joined the majority of the Senate in voting for this more sensible and effective approach and against Senator Cornyn's amendment.

Despite my concerns about the bill, it contains several provisions that are important and worthy. For example, this bill contains the DREAM Act, which provides higher education opportunities for children who are long-term U.S. residents and came to this country illegally through no fault of their own. It also contains AgJOBS, a bill long in the making that will provide much needed assistance to agricultural workers. And it contains the Secure and Safe Detention and Asylum Act, to ensure that asylum seekers and other vulnerable populations have a meaningful opportunity to exercise their rights under law, and to provide for humane detention conditions in accordance with the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

I am pleased the Senate approved the addition to the bill of the Wartime Treatment Study Act, legislation Senator Grassley and I have been trying to enact for years to examine the treatment of German Americans, Italian Americans, and other European Americans during World War II, as well as Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany. While there has been study of the internment and relocation of Japanese Americans during World War II, few people know about our Government's failure to protect the basic rights of German and Italian Americans. We also must understand why, as the United States heroically battled fascism, our Government turned away thousands of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany, delivering many of them to their deaths at the hands of the Nazi regime. I first introduced this legislation in 2001 after hearing from a group of German Americans in Wisconsin who were concerned that this sad chapter in our Nation's history had gone unnoticed for too long. It is only appropriate for a country that prides itself on equality and justice to acknowledge and learn from its mistakes. It is long past time to enact the Wartime Treatment Study Act, and I will continue to push for it to become law.

I hope the Senate will still have the chance to address the need for comprehensive immigration reform. Congress needs to act on this issue, which is why I voted to move forward with this bill despite the serious flaws I have discussed. I will work with my colleagues to try to make sure this happens and to make sure that we end up with a bill that represents true immigration reform--one that encourages the 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country to come forward out of the shadows, takes a comprehensive approach to preventing illegal immigration in the future, and strengthens our society by welcoming immigrants who can make valuable contributions.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Veterans Advocacy Act of 2007. This bill would create a grant program for organizations providing pro bono legal representation to servicemembers and veterans to ensure that they receive the health care and benefits to which they are entitled.

The men and women of the Armed Services have served this Nation honorably and deserve the best health care and benefits available. However, as recent revelations about the extent of bureaucratic delays at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center demonstrate, these brave individuals face a series of hurdles as they navigate the health care and disability compensation processes. Many of them are forced to turn to their representatives in Congress for help cutting through the red tape. I have heard from many military personnel and veterans who are frustrated with the system or unaware of Federal health care and other benefits for which they may be eligible. I regret that the system too often makes the burden of proving that a condition is related to military service nearly insurmountable. Our men and women in uniform deserve the benefit of the doubt, and should not have to fight the Department of Defense or the Department of Veterans Affairs for benefits that they have earned through their service to our Nation.

Numerous reports have detailed the range of administrative and legal hurdles injured servicemembers will face when they return home. Service members returning with unprecedented rates of post traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, and traumatic brain injury, TBI, will struggle to get the medical records they need to file benefits claims. Those with severe TBI that does not show up on brain scans will have an even harder time establishing that they need compensation. Those with profound TBI may be prematurely relegated to care in a nursing home when, with proper assistance, they may be fully capable of living independent lives in the community. The Government Accountability Office reported

that over 75 percent of servicemembers who screen positive for PTSD will not be referred to a mental health professional. Members of the Guard and Reserves face additional hurdles to gain access to military doctors. This is unacceptable.

I commend my colleagues for their support of increased funding for the military and veterans' health care systems in the 2007 emergency supplemental. However, I am concerned that unless veterans have independent advocates to ensure that they are receiving top notch care and that they are aware of the benefits to which they are entitled, these additional funds may be mismanaged. Last November, the Government Accountability Office reported that for the last two years the Department of Veterans Affairs has not expended all the funds allocated for mental health initiatives. My bill would ensure that service members and veterans who have trouble accessing the care to which they are entitled will have an advocate outside the chain of command who can negotiate with the Departments to ensure proper care.

In addition to helping ensure that service members and veterans receive top notch care, my bill would help service members and veterans overcome legal barriers to obtaining benefits. During the Veterans' Affairs Committee's hearing on benefits legislation, Meredith Beck of the Wounded Warrior Project summarized the problem as follows: ``In many of the cases we have seen, the creation of new benefits wasn't needed to aid the service member, rather, the wounded warrior just needed to have the existing benefits systems better explained and untangled in order to understand what was available to them.''

Fortunately, service members and veterans benefit from the services of a nationwide system of veterans and military service organizations. However, the system is simply overwhelmed. It will be further inundated when the over 170,000 servicemembers deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan return home. I want to be clear that the purpose of this legislation is to supplement the existing network of advocates to ease the caseload of overburdened service officers and allow them to spend more time per case helping veterans and service members.

Congress has a responsibility to simplify the system and ensure that it gives service members and veterans the benefit of the doubt when they seek assistance for service-connected disabilities. It is my hope that the majority of veterans will not need legal representation. But the reality is that many veterans face unnecessary delays and appeals of legitimate compensation claims that could be avoided if there were enough advocates to ensure that every veteran's case is carefully developed from the beginning. Several judges of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims have described the importance of ensuring that veterans have legal representation throughout the claim process. Judge Holdaway summarized the need as follows:

If you get lawyers involved at the beginning, you can focus

in on what is this case about. I think you would get better

records, you would narrow the issue, there would be screening

. . . I think if we had lawyers involved at the beginning of

these cases, it would be the single most fundamental change

for the better that this system could have.

While the need for legal representation in complicated cases is clear, I do not believe that veterans should have to pay for legal representation just to get the benefits they earned through their service. I have been troubled when I have heard that service members are seeking expensive legal assistance to help them overcome daunting administrative and legal hurdles. Fortunately, there are legal service organizations and attorneys who are willing to provide assistance to these service members and veterans free of charge. The purpose of this bill is to help these organizations get the training they need to help veterans and service members.

The bill would establish a pilot program of one-year grants to organizations that have experience serving veterans or persons with disabilities. The Veterans Administration will be charged with appointing a committee to disburse the grants. The committee shall be composed of veterans and military service officers, veterans and disability legal service attorneys, and representatives of the Department of Veterans Affairs employees and the Department of Defense. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs will be required to submit a report to Congress on the number of individuals served and the kinds of assistance they received as a result of the pilot program.

In order to avoid adding to our country's sizable debt, the $1 million cost of this program is taken from the $3 billion appropriated to the defense health program by the 2008 supplemental spending bill. The grant program will help ensure that these funds are spent wisely.

Veterans and military service organizations that currently employ attorneys will be eligible to receive the grants either to provide legal services at no charge or to provide training to other pro bono attorneys. The bill will also help servicemembers and veterans access the services of the federally funded and mandated protection and advocacy system for persons with disabilities. This system has lawyers in every state who are trained to help people with disabilities obtain the benefits, health care and services they need to live independent lives. These attorneys are uniquely qualified to, for example, ensure that veterans with PTSD are properly diagnosed and treated and to prevent those with TBI from being placed in nursing homes when they are capable of living in the community. Many veterans have been seeking out their assistance but the system is currently overwhelmed. I have included a description of the assistance that the protection and advocacy systems have been providing veterans. This bill would help foster collaboration between lawyers with expertise in veterans' law and those with expertise in disability law.

I commend my colleagues who have offered bills to increase funding for the care of service members and veterans, to expand necessary benefits and to ensure that our military and veterans health care systems offer the best care available. In order to ensure that service members and veterans are able to capitalize on these important reforms, they need independent advocates who can help them cut through the red tape. My bill would help expand the cadre of experienced advocates who will do just that. The bill has been endorsed by the National Organization of Veterans Advocates, the Vietnam Veterans of America and the Protection and Advocacy System's National Disability Rights Network.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Veterans Advocacy Act of 2007. This bill would create a grant program for organizations providing pro bono legal representation to servicemembers and veterans to ensure that they receive the health care and benefits to which they are entitled.

The men and women of the Armed Services have served this Nation honorably and deserve the best health care and benefits available. However, as recent revelations about the extent of bureaucratic delays at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center demonstrate, these brave individuals face a series of hurdles as they navigate the health care and disability compensation processes. Many of them are forced to turn to their representatives in Congress for help cutting through the red tape. I have heard from many military personnel and veterans who are frustrated with the system or unaware of Federal health care and other benefits for which they may be eligible. I regret that the system too often makes the burden of proving that a condition is related to military service nearly insurmountable. Our men and women in uniform deserve the benefit of the doubt, and should not have to fight the Department of Defense or the Department of Veterans Affairs for benefits that they have earned through their service to our Nation.

Numerous reports have detailed the range of administrative and legal hurdles injured servicemembers will face when they return home. Service members returning with unprecedented rates of post traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, and traumatic brain injury, TBI, will struggle to get the medical records they need to file benefits claims. Those with severe TBI that does not show up on brain scans will have an even harder time establishing that they need compensation. Those with profound TBI may be prematurely relegated to care in a nursing home when, with proper assistance, they may be fully capable of living independent lives in the community. The Government Accountability Office reported

that over 75 percent of servicemembers who screen positive for PTSD will not be referred to a mental health professional. Members of the Guard and Reserves face additional hurdles to gain access to military doctors. This is unacceptable.

I commend my colleagues for their support of increased funding for the military and veterans' health care systems in the 2007 emergency supplemental. However, I am concerned that unless veterans have independent advocates to ensure that they are receiving top notch care and that they are aware of the benefits to which they are entitled, these additional funds may be mismanaged. Last November, the Government Accountability Office reported that for the last two years the Department of Veterans Affairs has not expended all the funds allocated for mental health initiatives. My bill would ensure that service members and veterans who have trouble accessing the care to which they are entitled will have an advocate outside the chain of command who can negotiate with the Departments to ensure proper care.

In addition to helping ensure that service members and veterans receive top notch care, my bill would help service members and veterans overcome legal barriers to obtaining benefits. During the Veterans' Affairs Committee's hearing on benefits legislation, Meredith Beck of the Wounded Warrior Project summarized the problem as follows: ``In many of the cases we have seen, the creation of new benefits wasn't needed to aid the service member, rather, the wounded warrior just needed to have the existing benefits systems better explained and untangled in order to understand what was available to them.''

Fortunately, service members and veterans benefit from the services of a nationwide system of veterans and military service organizations. However, the system is simply overwhelmed. It will be further inundated when the over 170,000 servicemembers deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan return home. I want to be clear that the purpose of this legislation is to supplement the existing network of advocates to ease the caseload of overburdened service officers and allow them to spend more time per case helping veterans and service members.

Congress has a responsibility to simplify the system and ensure that it gives service members and veterans the benefit of the doubt when they seek assistance for service-connected disabilities. It is my hope that the majority of veterans will not need legal representation. But the reality is that many veterans face unnecessary delays and appeals of legitimate compensation claims that could be avoided if there were enough advocates to ensure that every veteran's case is carefully developed from the beginning. Several judges of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims have described the importance of ensuring that veterans have legal representation throughout the claim process. Judge Holdaway summarized the need as follows:

If you get lawyers involved at the beginning, you can focus

in on what is this case about. I think you would get better

records, you would narrow the issue, there would be screening

. . . I think if we had lawyers involved at the beginning of

these cases, it would be the single most fundamental change

for the better that this system could have.

While the need for legal representation in complicated cases is clear, I do not believe that veterans should have to pay for legal representation just to get the benefits they earned through their service. I have been troubled when I have heard that service members are seeking expensive legal assistance to help them overcome daunting administrative and legal hurdles. Fortunately, there are legal service organizations and attorneys who are willing to provide assistance to these service members and veterans free of charge. The purpose of this bill is to help these organizations get the training they need to help veterans and service members.

The bill would establish a pilot program of one-year grants to organizations that have experience serving veterans or persons with disabilities. The Veterans Administration will be charged with appointing a committee to disburse the grants. The committee shall be composed of veterans and military service officers, veterans and disability legal service attorneys, and representatives of the Department of Veterans Affairs employees and the Department of Defense. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs will be required to submit a report to Congress on the number of individuals served and the kinds of assistance they received as a result of the pilot program.

In order to avoid adding to our country's sizable debt, the $1 million cost of this program is taken from the $3 billion appropriated to the defense health program by the 2008 supplemental spending bill. The grant program will help ensure that these funds are spent wisely.

Veterans and military service organizations that currently employ attorneys will be eligible to receive the grants either to provide legal services at no charge or to provide training to other pro bono attorneys. The bill will also help servicemembers and veterans access the services of the federally funded and mandated protection and advocacy system for persons with disabilities. This system has lawyers in every state who are trained to help people with disabilities obtain the benefits, health care and services they need to live independent lives. These attorneys are uniquely qualified to, for example, ensure that veterans with PTSD are properly diagnosed and treated and to prevent those with TBI from being placed in nursing homes when they are capable of living in the community. Many veterans have been seeking out their assistance but the system is currently overwhelmed. I have included a description of the assistance that the protection and advocacy systems have been providing veterans. This bill would help foster collaboration between lawyers with expertise in veterans' law and those with expertise in disability law.

I commend my colleagues who have offered bills to increase funding for the care of service members and veterans, to expand necessary benefits and to ensure that our military and veterans health care systems offer the best care available. In order to ensure that service members and veterans are able to capitalize on these important reforms, they need independent advocates who can help them cut through the red tape. My bill would help expand the cadre of experienced advocates who will do just that. The bill has been endorsed by the National Organization of Veterans Advocates, the Vietnam Veterans of America and the Protection and Advocacy System's National Disability Rights Network.

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

Mr. President, I join the many Senators who have paid tribute to our colleague Craig Thomas. Many of my colleagues have come to the floor since Senator Thomas's passing, and it is clear how many friends he had in this Chamber and how well everyone thought of him and the work he did.

We all knew him as a hard-working Member of the Senate who quickly earned his colleagues' respect. That respect was grounded in the way Craig Thomas served his country throughout his life. He spent 4 years in the U.S. Marine Corps and served in the Wyoming State Legislature, the U.S. House of Representatives, and since 1995, the U.S. Senate.

During his years in the Senate, Senator Thomas served Wyoming with great dedication. Raised on a ranch, Senator Thomas understood the concerns of rural Americans, and I appreciated his efforts in the Senate to stand up for the people who keep our rural communities strong. That is an important concern in my State, and I know it is in Wyoming as well.

I was very pleased to work with him to improve competition and fair treatment for farmers and ranchers. I know that he was committed to giving farmers and ranchers a fair shake in the marketplace, and his constituents appreciated that dedication.

Senator Thomas also worked on a range of health care issues important to rural Americans. He well understood the challenges that people in rural areas face as they seek access to health care services and helped to address those concerns. The Senate benefited from his leadership as cochair of the Senate's Rural Health Caucus, where he showed tremendous commitment to these issues. He led the push to maintain full funding for several rural health discretionary programs, and I am grateful for his efforts. That was just one of the many ways he contributed to the work of the Senate and served the people of Wyoming.

As we remember Senator Thomas, we can all be grateful for the life he led and his outstanding service to the Senate and to our country. To his wife, his family, his staff, and his many friends, I offer my condolences and my deepest sympathies.

Mr. President, earlier this week in a special chamber of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, based in The Hague, proceedings began in the trial of former Liberian President Charles Taylor, who is accused of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and serious violations of international

law committed during Sierra Leone's 11-year civil war. Tens of thousands died in this conflict that ended in 2002, and more than a third of Sierra Leone's 6 million people were forced to flee. His trial is expect to have significant impact across Sierra Leone but also throughout neighboring countries as his raging brutality was in no way confined by national borders.

For over a decade, the people of Sierra Leone and Liberia not only suffered from deprivation and displacement at the hands of Charles Taylor, but they also endured forced recruitment of child soldiers, widespread and brutal sexual violence, and horrifying murders and mutilations. Those responsible for these crimes abandoned all human decency in their quest for power and wealth.

I have long been a strong supporter of accountability mechanisms around the world--and in particular Sierra Leone's Special Court and Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I have worked to ensure that the United States provides appropriate financial and political support for such important institutions, which are crucial to building a framework for the rule of law in postconflict countries. I commend the court for taking its mandate seriously and for following the evidence where it led--directly to a sitting head of state.

Despite Charles Taylor's unwillingness to appear at the opening of yesterday's trial, the message this critical trial sends--to current and would-be corrupt, violent, and brutal leaders--is momentous: the international community will no longer stand silently by but will support efforts to break the worst cycles of violence and impunity. When the trial continues later this month in The Hague, it is essential that international fair trial standards are adhered to, that robust and transparent outreach programs continue uninterrupted so the trial remains as accessible as possible to those most affected by the conflict and that great care is taken to ensure the security of victims, witnesses, and their families.

While I welcome the proceedings in The Hague, more needs to be done on behalf of the people of Sierra Leone and Liberia. True accountability for the horrific atrocities they endured will only be achieved when the rule of law is respected at every level in the governments of both countries and all citizens have access to justice. Great steps forward have been taken, but much more work remains. I will continue to press the United States and the international community not to desert the people of Sierra Leone--or the region--as they work to reconcile their grievances and seek to heal from one of Africa's worst conflicts.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 1176. This amendment contains the language of S. 621, the Wartime Treatment Study Act, a bipartisan bill I have introduced with my friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley.

This amendment would create two fact-finding commissions: one commission to review the U.S. Government's treatment of German Americans, Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans during World War II, and another commission to review the U.S. Government's treatment of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution during World War II. This amendment would help us to learn more about how recent immigrants and refugees were treated during World War II.

The United States fought a courageous battle against the spread of Nazism and fascism. But we should not let justifiable pride in our Nation's triumph in World War II blind us to the treatment of some Americans by their own government.

Many Americans are aware that during World War II, under the authority of Executive Order 9066 and the Alien Enemies Act, the U.S. Government forced more than 100,000 ethnic Japanese from their homes and into relocation and internment camps. Through the work of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians created by Congress in 1980, this unfortunate episode in our history finally received the official acknowledgment and condemnation it deserved.

But that same respect has not been shown to the many German Americans, Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans who were taken from their homes, subjected to curfews, limited in their travel, deprived of their personal property, and, in the worst cases, placed in internment camps. This amendment would simply create a commission to review the facts and circumstances of the U.S. Government's

treatment of German Americans, Italian Americans, and other European Americans during World War II. It is time for a full accounting of that sad chapter in our history.

A second commission created by this amendment would review the treatment by the U.S. government of Jewish refugees who were fleeing Nazi persecution and genocide and tried to come to the United States. German and Austrian Jews applied for visas, but the United States severely limited their entry due to strict immigration policies, policies that many believe were motivated by fear that our enemies would send spies under the guise of refugees and by the unfortunate antiforeigner and anti-Semitic attitudes that were, sadly, all too common at that time.

It is time for the country to review the facts and determine how our immigration policies failed to provide adequate safe harbor to Jewish refugees fleeing the persecution of Nazi Germany.

It is urgent that we pass this legislation. We cannot wait any longer. The injustices to European Americans and Jewish refugees occurred more than 50 years ago. Many of those who were harmed are no longer with us, the rest are very elderly.

Americans must learn from these tragedies now, before there is no one left. These people have suffered long enough without the comfort of an official, independent study of what happened to them, and without knowing that this Nation recognizes their sacrifice and resolves to learn from the mistakes of the past.

This amendment does not call for reparations. All it does is ensure that the public has a full accounting of what happened. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the bipartisan Wartime Treatment Study Act as an amendment to this immigration legislation.

Mr. President, I assume we will not have the time before the vote, then. This is the remaining time we have, correct?

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, my amendment, again, contains the language of S. 621, the Wartime Treatment Study Act, a bill I have introduced with my friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley. It is not controversial.

It would simply create two fact-finding commissions: one commission to review the U.S. Government's treatment of German Americans, Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans during World War II and another commission to review the U.S. Government's treatment of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution during World War II.

These commissions would complete the work of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, created by Congress in 1980 to study the relocation and internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Thanks to that commission, this unfortunate episode in our history finally received the official acknowledgement and condemnation it deserved.

My amendment would simply allow that work to be completed. It is time to pass this legislation, now, before all the individuals affected by these policies are gone. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, my amendment contains the language of S. 621, the Wartime Treatment Study Act, which is a bill I have introduced with my friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley. It is noncontroversial.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. President, I again thank the Senator from West Virginia.

This bill would simply create two fact-finding commissions: one commission to review the U.S. Government's treatment of German Americans, Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans during World War II, and another commission to review the U.S. Government's treatment of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution during World War

Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from New Jersey.

I rise today to express my disappointment, both in the final version of the supplemental spending bill that we expect to consider today, and in the process that led to this badly flawed bill. Those two concerns are linked because the flawed procedure the Senate adopted when we passed a sham supplemental bill last week, without debate or amendments, helped grease the wheels for a final bill that contains no

binding language on redeployment. While our brave troops are stuck in the middle of a civil war in Iraq, we have a bill with political benchmarks that lack meaningful consequences if they are not reached.

Legislation as important as this funding bill should have been openly considered in this body. I am talking about an open and on-the-record debate with amendments offered and voted upon. That is the way the Senate is supposed to operate. I shared the desire of my colleagues to pass this important bill as quickly as possible, but that was no excuse for us avoiding our responsibilities as legislators. Unquestionably, it was easier and faster for us to send a place holder bill back to the House. By doing that, the real work could be done behind closed doors where all kinds of horse trading can occur and decisions are unknown until the final deal is sealed. That process makes it a lot easier for most Members of Congress to avoid responsibility for the final outcome--we didn't have to cast any votes or make any difficult decisions. In short, we didn't have to do any legislating.

Now that we face a badly flawed, take-it-or-leave-it bill, we can simply shrug, apparently, and tell our constituents we did the best we could. That is not good enough, not when we are talking about the most pressing issue facing this country.

In the 5 months we have been in control of Congress, a unified Democratic caucus, with the help of some Republicans, has made great strides toward changing the course in Iraq. We were able to pass the first supplemental bill, supported by a majority of the Senate, that required the phased redeployment of our troops to begin in 120 days.

Last week, a majority of Democrats supported ending the current open- ended mission by March 31, 2008. It has been almost 1 year since 13 Senators supported the proposal I offered with Senator Kerry that would have brought our troops out of Iraq by this summer. Now, 29 Senators support an even stronger measure, enforced by Congress's power of the purse, to safely redeploy our troops.

Unfortunately, after that strong vote, we are now moving backward. Instead of forcing the President to safely redeploy our troops, instead of coming up with a strategy providing assistance to a postredeployment Iraq, and instead of a renewed focus on the global fight against al- Qaida, we are faced with a spending bill that just kicks the can down the road and buys the administration time.

But why, I ask you, would we buy the administration more time? Why should we wait any longer? Since the war began in March 2003, we have lost more than 3,420 Americans, with over 71 killed since the beginning of this month. Last month, we lost over 100 Americans. Last weekend, the media reported that 24 bodies were found lying in the streets of Baghdad, all of whom had been killed execution style. Nineteen of them were found within parts of the city where the troops have ``surged.''

The administration's policy is clearly untenable. The American people know that, which is why they voted the way they did in November. They want us out of Iraq, and they want us out now. They don't want to give the so-called surge time. They don't want to pass this problem off to another President and another Congress. And they sure don't want another American servicemember to die or lose a limb while elected representatives put their own political comfort over the wishes of their constituents.

It was bad enough to have the President again disregard the American people by escalating our involvement in Iraq. Now, too, Congress seems to be ignoring the will of the American people. If the American people cannot count on the leaders they elected to listen to them and to act on their demands, then something is seriously wrong with our political institutions or with the people who currently occupy those institutions.

I urge my colleagues to reject the weak supplemental conference report and to stand strong as we tell the administration it is time to end the war that is draining our resources, straining our military, and undermining our national security.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I might call up an amendment.

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 1176.

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

Madam President, this amendment contains the language of S. 621, the Wartime Treatment Study Act, a bill I have introduced with my friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley.

This amendment would create two fact-finding commissions: one commission to review the U.S. Government's treatment of German Americans, Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans during World War II, and another commission to review the U.S. Government's treatment of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution during World War

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Global Service Fellowship Program Act. This important bill would provide more Americans the opportunity to volunteer overseas and strengthen our existing Federal international education and exchange system. I believe the U.S. government needs to be taking a greater leadership role in providing opportunities for U.S. citizens to volunteer overseas and my bill will enhance U.S. efforts to be a global leader in people-to-people engagement.

People-to-people engagement is one of the United States' most effective public diplomacy tools and, today more than ever, we need to be investing in every opportunity to improve the perception of the U.S. overseas. Bad policy decisions by this administration have led to an alarming increase in negative opinions of the United States and we have not done enough to reverse this trend.

Studies have shown that, in areas where U.S. citizens have volunteered their time, money, and services, opinions of the United States have improved. A 2006 Terror Free Tomorrow poll found that, ``In Indonesia, almost two years after the tsunami, American aid to tsunami victims continues to be the single biggest factor resulting in favorable opinion towards the United States. Almost 60 percent of Indonesians surveyed nationwide in August 2006 said that American assistance made them favorable to the United States. This number has remained solid following tsunami relief, despite a growing number of Indonesians who oppose American-led efforts to fight terrorism.''

Greater investment in volunteer opportunities has significant potential to improve the image of the U.S. overseas and while we have important programs already in place, the Peace Corps and programs administered through the Department of State's Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs, we can and should be doing more.

My bill would not only provide more opportunities for people-to- people engagement, but it reduces barriers that the average citizen faces when trying to volunteer internationally. First of all, my bill would reduce financial barriers by awarding fellowship awards designed to defray some of the costs associated with volunteering. The fellowship awards can be applied towards airfare, housing, or program costs, to name a few examples. By providing financial assistance, the Global Service Fellowship program opens the door for every American to be a participant, not just those with the resources to pay for it.

Secondly, my bill reduces volunteering barriers by offering flexibility in the length of the volunteer opportunity. I often hear from constituents that they do not seek opportunities to participate in Federal volunteer programs because they cannot leave their jobs or family for years at a time. The Global Service Fellowship Programs offers volunteers the opportunity to volunteer on a schedule that works for them, a month up to a year. My bill provides a commonsense approach to the time limitations of the average American.

Not only does this bill open the door for any U.S. citizen to apply for fellowship consideration, it calls on Congress to be part of the decision-making process. The Global Service Fellowship Program integrates members of Congress by calling on them to nominate volunteer applicants to the Department of State for consideration. Through this process, Congress will see firsthand the benefit international volunteering brings to their communities and the nation.

My bill would cost $150 million, which is more than offset by a provision that would require the IRS to deposit all of its fee receipts in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. CBO has estimated that this offset will save $559 million over 5 years for net deficit reduction of approximately $409 million.

I am pleased that my colleagues, Senators Coleman, Voinovich, Casey, Menendez, and Lautenberg have joined me in introducing this bill. This program would be a valuable addition to our public diplomacy and humanitarian efforts overseas and I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.