Floor Statements

Mr. President, I supported that Ensign amendment today because it is vitally important that we protect our children against sexual predators. I did so despite my serious concern about the offset used to pay for the program. We should not be cutting funding from the State Department's Bureau of Education and Cultural Exchange, ECA. I strongly believe that people-to-people exchange is one of the most effective public diplomacy tools we have, and I hope that funding for the ECA will be restored in conference.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I am pleased to vote in favor of the fiscal year 2007 supplemental because it contains binding language that effectively ends the current misguided military mission in Iraq and requires the President to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. While this action is long overdue, it is a big step in the right direction and it brings us closer to ending our involvement in this disastrous war.

I am also pleased that the supplemental includes necessary funding to address conflicts throughout the world, especially in Sudan, Somalia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, to assist Iraqi refugees and internally displaced persons fleeing their homes, and to help pay for U.S. arrears to the U.N.

The supplemental also contains a 1-month extension of the Milk Income Loss Contract, MILC, program, which fixes a quirk that could have put family dairy farmers on unequal footing during the upcoming farm bill debate. I was glad this provision was included in the supplemental and will work with my colleagues to retain it during conference.

I am extremely disappointed at the removal of a provision in the supplemental spending bill that would have fixed a glaring problem in immigration law that effectively labeled the Hmong as terrorists. We will forever be indebted to the Hmong who fought alongside and supported the United States during the Vietnam war. I will continue working to make sure that Hmong and other legitimate refugees who are not threats to our national security do not face lengthy and unnecessary delays as the Federal agencies involved determine whether they are eligible for a waiver that would permit them to resettle in the United States or adjust their immigration status.

I remain concerned at the continued practice of funding the war in Iraq through emergency spending bills. We should not be using such bills to bypass the regular appropriations process. That is why I supported efforts to remove certain spending provisions that do not appear to address true emergencies, including an amendment offered by Senator Coburn to remove funding for next year's political conventions.

Mr. President, I am introducing the Crane Conservation Act of 2007. I am very pleased that the Senators from Idaho, Mr. Crapo, Florida, Mr. Martinez, Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, Maryland, Mr. Cardin, and Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, have joined me as cosponsors of this bill. I propose this legislation in the hope that Congress will do its part to protect the existence of these birds, whose cultural significance and popular appeal can be seen worldwide. This legislation is particularly important to the people of Wisconsin, as our State provides habitat and refuge to several crane species. But this legislation, which authorizes the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to distribute funds and grants to crane conservation efforts both domestically and in developing countries, promises to have a larger environmental and cultural impact that will go far beyond the boundaries of my home state. This bill is similar to legislation that I introduced in the 107th, 108th, and 109th Congresses.

In October of 1994, Congress passed and the President signed the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. The passage of this act provided support for multinational rhino and tiger conservation through the creation of the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, or RTCF. Administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the RTCF distributes up to $10 million in grants every year to conservation groups to support projects in developing countries. Since its establishment in 1994, the RTCF has been expanded by Congress to cover other species, such as elephants and great apes.

Today, with the legislation I am introducing, I am asking Congress to add cranes to this list. Cranes are the most endangered family of birds in the world, with 11 of the world's 15 species at risk of extinction. Specifically, this legislation would authorize up to $5 million of funds per year to be distributed in the form of conservation project grants to protect cranes and their habitat. The financial resources authorized by this bill can be made available to qualifying conservation groups operating in Asia, Africa, and North America. The program is authorized from Fiscal Year 2008 through Fiscal Year 2012.

In keeping with my belief that we should balance the budget, this bill proposes that the $25 million in authorized spending over 5 years for the Crane Conservation Act established in this legislation should be offset through the Secretary of the Interior's administrative budget. The Secretary of the Interior would be required to transfer any funds it does not expend under the Crane Conservation Act back to the Treasury at the end of fiscal year 2012.

I am offering this legislation due to the serious and significant decline that can be expected in crane populations worldwide without further conservation efforts. Those efforts have achieved some success in the case of the North American whooping crane, the rarest crane on earth. In 1941, only 21 whooping cranes existed in the entire world. This stands in contrast to the over 450 birds in existence today. The North American whooping crane's resurgence is attributed to the bird's tenacity for survival and to the efforts of conservationists in the United States and Canada. Today, the only wild flock of North American whooping cranes breeds in northwest Canada, and spends its winters in coastal Texas. A new flock of cranes is currently being reintroduced to the wild in an eastern flyway from Wisconsin to Florida.

The movement of this flock of birds shows how any effort by Congress to regulate crane conservation needs to cross both national and international lines. As this flock of birds makes its journey from Wisconsin to Florida, the birds rely on the ecosystems of a multitude of states in this country. In its journey from the Necedah National Wildlife Refuge in Wisconsin to the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge in Florida in the fall and eventual return to my home State in the spring, this flock also faces threats from pollution of traditional watering grounds, collision with utility lines, human disturbance, disease, predation, loss of genetic diversity within the population, and vulnerability to catastrophes, both natural and man-made.

The birds also rely on private landowners, the vast majority of whom have enthusiastically welcomed the birds to their rest on their land. Through its extensive outreach and education program, the Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership has obtained the consistent support of farmers and other private landowners to make this important recovery program a success. On every front, this partnership is unique.

Despite the remarkable conservation efforts taken since 1941, however, this species is still very much in danger of extinction. While over the course of the last half-century, North American whooping cranes have begun to make a slow recovery, many species of crane in Africa and Asia have declined, including the sarus crane of Asia and the wattled crane of Africa.

The sarus crane stands four feet tall and can be found in the wetlands of

northern India and south Asia. These birds require large, open, well- watered plains or marshes to breed and survive. Due to agricultural expansion, industrial development, river basin development, pollution, warfare, and heavy use of pesticides prevalent in India and southeast Asia, the sarus crane population has been in decline. Furthermore, in many areas, a high human population concentration compounds these factors. On the Mekong River, which runs through Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, and China, human population growth and planned development projects threaten the sarus crane. Reports from India, Cambodia, and Thailand have also cited incidences of the trading of adult birds and chicks, as well as hunting and egg stealing in the drop in population of the sarus crane.

Only three subspecies of the sarus crane exist today. One resides in northern India and Nepal, one resides in southeast Asia, and one resides in northern Australia. Their population is about 8,000 in the main Indian population, with recent numbers showing a rapid decline. In Southeast Asia, only 1,000 birds remain.

The situation of the sarus crane in Asia is mirrored by the situation of the wattled crane in Africa. In Africa, the wattled crane is found in the southern and eastern regions, with an isolated population in the mountains of Ethiopia. Current population estimates range between 6,000 to 8,000 and are declining rapidly, due to loss and degradation of wetland habitats, as well as intensified agriculture, dam construction, and industrialization. In other parts of the range, the creation of dams has changed the dynamics of the flood plains, thus further endangering these cranes and their habitats. Human disturbance at or near breeding sites also continues to be a major threat. Lack of oversight and education over the actions of people, industry, and agriculture is leading to reduced preservation for the lands on which cranes live, thereby threatening the ability of cranes to survive in these regions.

If we do not act now, not only will cranes face extinction, but the ecosystems that depend on their contributions will suffer. With the decline of the crane population, the wetlands and marshes they inhabit can potentially be thrown off balance. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting legislation that can provide funding to the local farming, education, and enforcement projects that can have the greatest positive effect on the preservation of both cranes and fragile habitats. This modest investment can secure the future of these exemplary birds and the beautiful areas in which they live. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support the Crane Conservation Act of 2007.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am introducing the Crane Conservation Act of 2007. I am very pleased that the Senators from Idaho, Mr. Crapo, Florida, Mr. Martinez, Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, Maryland, Mr. Cardin, and Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, have joined me as cosponsors of this bill. I propose this legislation in the hope that Congress will do its part to protect the existence of these birds, whose cultural significance and popular appeal can be seen worldwide. This legislation is particularly important to the people of Wisconsin, as our State provides habitat and refuge to several crane species. But this legislation, which authorizes the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to distribute funds and grants to crane conservation efforts both domestically and in developing countries, promises to have a larger environmental and cultural impact that will go far beyond the boundaries of my home state. This bill is similar to legislation that I introduced in the 107th, 108th, and 109th Congresses.

In October of 1994, Congress passed and the President signed the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. The passage of this act provided support for multinational rhino and tiger conservation through the creation of the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, or RTCF. Administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the RTCF distributes up to $10 million in grants every year to conservation groups to support projects in developing countries. Since its establishment in 1994, the RTCF has been expanded by Congress to cover other species, such as elephants and great apes.

Today, with the legislation I am introducing, I am asking Congress to add cranes to this list. Cranes are the most endangered family of birds in the world, with 11 of the world's 15 species at risk of extinction. Specifically, this legislation would authorize up to $5 million of funds per year to be distributed in the form of conservation project grants to protect cranes and their habitat. The financial resources authorized by this bill can be made available to qualifying conservation groups operating in Asia, Africa, and North America. The program is authorized from Fiscal Year 2008 through Fiscal Year 2012.

In keeping with my belief that we should balance the budget, this bill proposes that the $25 million in authorized spending over 5 years for the Crane Conservation Act established in this legislation should be offset through the Secretary of the Interior's administrative budget. The Secretary of the Interior would be required to transfer any funds it does not expend under the Crane Conservation Act back to the Treasury at the end of fiscal year 2012.

I am offering this legislation due to the serious and significant decline that can be expected in crane populations worldwide without further conservation efforts. Those efforts have achieved some success in the case of the North American whooping crane, the rarest crane on earth. In 1941, only 21 whooping cranes existed in the entire world. This stands in contrast to the over 450 birds in existence today. The North American whooping crane's resurgence is attributed to the bird's tenacity for survival and to the efforts of conservationists in the United States and Canada. Today, the only wild flock of North American whooping cranes breeds in northwest Canada, and spends its winters in coastal Texas. A new flock of cranes is currently being reintroduced to the wild in an eastern flyway from Wisconsin to Florida.

The movement of this flock of birds shows how any effort by Congress to regulate crane conservation needs to cross both national and international lines. As this flock of birds makes its journey from Wisconsin to Florida, the birds rely on the ecosystems of a multitude of states in this country. In its journey from the Necedah National Wildlife Refuge in Wisconsin to the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge in Florida in the fall and eventual return to my home State in the spring, this flock also faces threats from pollution of traditional watering grounds, collision with utility lines, human disturbance, disease, predation, loss of genetic diversity within the population, and vulnerability to catastrophes, both natural and man-made.

The birds also rely on private landowners, the vast majority of whom have enthusiastically welcomed the birds to their rest on their land. Through its extensive outreach and education program, the Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership has obtained the consistent support of farmers and other private landowners to make this important recovery program a success. On every front, this partnership is unique.

Despite the remarkable conservation efforts taken since 1941, however, this species is still very much in danger of extinction. While over the course of the last half-century, North American whooping cranes have begun to make a slow recovery, many species of crane in Africa and Asia have declined, including the sarus crane of Asia and the wattled crane of Africa.

The sarus crane stands four feet tall and can be found in the wetlands of

northern India and south Asia. These birds require large, open, well- watered plains or marshes to breed and survive. Due to agricultural expansion, industrial development, river basin development, pollution, warfare, and heavy use of pesticides prevalent in India and southeast Asia, the sarus crane population has been in decline. Furthermore, in many areas, a high human population concentration compounds these factors. On the Mekong River, which runs through Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, and China, human population growth and planned development projects threaten the sarus crane. Reports from India, Cambodia, and Thailand have also cited incidences of the trading of adult birds and chicks, as well as hunting and egg stealing in the drop in population of the sarus crane.

Only three subspecies of the sarus crane exist today. One resides in northern India and Nepal, one resides in southeast Asia, and one resides in northern Australia. Their population is about 8,000 in the main Indian population, with recent numbers showing a rapid decline. In Southeast Asia, only 1,000 birds remain.

The situation of the sarus crane in Asia is mirrored by the situation of the wattled crane in Africa. In Africa, the wattled crane is found in the southern and eastern regions, with an isolated population in the mountains of Ethiopia. Current population estimates range between 6,000 to 8,000 and are declining rapidly, due to loss and degradation of wetland habitats, as well as intensified agriculture, dam construction, and industrialization. In other parts of the range, the creation of dams has changed the dynamics of the flood plains, thus further endangering these cranes and their habitats. Human disturbance at or near breeding sites also continues to be a major threat. Lack of oversight and education over the actions of people, industry, and agriculture is leading to reduced preservation for the lands on which cranes live, thereby threatening the ability of cranes to survive in these regions.

If we do not act now, not only will cranes face extinction, but the ecosystems that depend on their contributions will suffer. With the decline of the crane population, the wetlands and marshes they inhabit can potentially be thrown off balance. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting legislation that can provide funding to the local farming, education, and enforcement projects that can have the greatest positive effect on the preservation of both cranes and fragile habitats. This modest investment can secure the future of these exemplary birds and the beautiful areas in which they live. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support the Crane Conservation Act of 2007.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding me the time. I don't think I will need to use all of it, but I appreciate it.

Time and time again, history has taught us that preventing a crisis is much less complicated and costly than ending and repairing the damage caused by a humanitarian tragedy. The clumsy and irresolute response to the current crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan, however, shows we still have not learned this painful lesson. While the world's leaders condemn the atrocities but delay taking strong action, the vile hatred and unspeakable violence that has resulted in the death and displacement of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Darfur has now spread to actually infect nearby areas, destabilizing neighboring countries and fueling a downward spiral of conflict and insecurity throughout the region.

I am especially disturbed by evidence that the brutal tactics of Darfur--and their tragic consequences--have now, in part, been transferred across the distant western border into eastern Chad and the Central African Republic. Last week I held a hearing in the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on African Affairs to examine the regional impact of the Darfur crisis. The overwhelming message from our distinguished witnesses was that the victims and perpetrators of the Darfur conflict are no longer simply confined within Sudanese borders, so both our humanitarian response and our strategy for peace need to incorporate these new regional dimensions.

Nearly a quarter of a million Darfur refugees have fled into eastern Chad, compounding an existing political and humanitarian crisis in that country. Lax security along Sudan's porous border has also allowed weapons and Darfur-based rebel groups to spread violence into Chad. Both the Chadian and Sudanese Governments accuse each other of supporting rebel factions seeking to overthrow the neighboring state. Last Saturday, the Chadian Government claimed Sudanese aircraft had shelled four Chadian towns. Ironically, the UNHCR has now begun moving Chadian refugees into Darfur for their safety.

Even before the recent outbreak of hostilities in the north, the Central African Republic was suffering extreme poverty and was deemed by the UN as ``the world's most silent crisis.'' Displacement--much of it the result of house-burning and other cruel tactics by Government forces--rose fourfold in the past year, with more than 200,000 unable to return to their homes. Since the displacement has been more gradual than in Darfur or eastern Chad, the growing humanitarian crisis has received little attention and the response of aid agencies has been slow and limited.

There is not yet a humanitarian emergency in the CAR, but if the fighting between the Government and rebel

forces continues and the UN doesn't begin to respond more effectively, conditions could worsen dramatically. Rather than allow another crisis to break out, we could help avert massive starvation and disease with a relatively minor intervention now. That is why I have proposed to include $10 million for the Central African Republic in the fiscal year 2007 supplemental so as to provide seeds and tools, basic shelter materials, and medicine now, a month or two before the rainy season, to reduce the risk of a widespread humanitarian disaster.

While U.S. attention to Darfur is essential, the expansion of this crisis now requires a more comprehensive approach that addresses the interrelated emergencies and underlying causes of instability in this volatile region. Conflicts in these countries will continue to simmer and spread unless the international community musters the political will and material resources to act upon the conviction so often expressed.

As the violence in Darfur worsens and spreads, we cannot pretend we did not see this coming. For nearly 3 years now, my colleagues and I have stood on this floor and called for an end to the genocide in Darfur. It makes me ill to think of how many lives have been lost and civilians displaced since then, but I become even more upset when I consider how much worse this crisis could still become. There is no excuse for the persistent reluctance of the U.S. Government and the international community to begin applying the economic and military leverage at their disposal to end the violence in Darfur and beyond.

I will continue to call for courageous U.S. leadership to defend these innocent people and demand accountability for the perpetrators of the atrocities that have been allowed to continue for far too long.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to speak today about the recent report by the inspector general of the Department of Justice on the FBI's use of national security letters. According to the inspector general's testimony before the Judiciary Committee, there was ``widespread and serious misuse of the FBI's national security letter authorities''--misuse that violated statutes, Attorney General guidelines, and internal FBI policies. I was deeply concerned by the findings in that report. Unfortunately, I was not surprised.

The national security letter, or NSL, authorities were dramatically expanded by Sections 358 and 505 of the PATRIOT Act. Unfortunately, in its haste to pass this flawed legislation, Congress essentially granted the FBI a blank check to obtain some very sensitive records about Americans, including people not under any suspicion of wrong doing, without judicial approval. So it is not surprising that the inspector general identified serious problems with the implementation of these broad authorities. Congress gave the FBI very few rules to follow. As a result, Congress shares some responsibility for the apparently lax attitude and in some cases serious misuse of these potentially very intrusive authorities by the FBI.

This inspector general report proves that ``trust us'' doesn't cut it when it comes to the Government's power to obtain Americans' sensitive business records without a court order and without any suspicion that they are tied to terrorism or espionage. It was a grave mistake for Congress to grant the Government broad authorities and just keep its fingers crossed that they wouldn't be misused. We have the responsibility to put appropriate limits on Government authorities-- limits that allow agents to actively pursue criminals and terrorists but that also protect the privacy of innocent Americans.

But let me back up a few steps. What are NSLs, and why are they such a concern? I am going to spend a little time on this because it is important. I believe there should be a legislative response to this report, so I want my colleagues to understand what we are dealing with here.

National security letters are issued by the FBI to businesses to obtain certain types of records. So they are similar to the controversial section 215 business record orders but with one very critical difference. While section 215 involves an application to the FISA Court, the Government does not need to get any court approval whatsoever to issue NSLs. It doesn't have to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or any other court and make even the most minimal showing. Under the PATRIOT Act, the FBI can simply

issue the order signed by the special agent in charge of a field office or some other supervisory official--although we now know that many NSLs were issued without even the signatures required by the PATRIOT Act.

Prior to the PATRIOT Act, the FBI had to certify specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the records sought with an NSL pertained to a terrorist or spy.

But the PATRIOT Act expanded the NSL authorities to allow the Government to use them to obtain records of people who are not suspected of being or even being connected to terrorists or spies. The Government need only certify that the documents are either ``sought for'' or ``relevant to'' an authorized intelligence investigation, a far-reaching standard that--even if followed closely, which we now know it was not--could be used to obtain all kinds of records about innocent Americans. Indeed, as the inspector general suggested, it could be used to ``access NSL information about parties two or three steps removed from their subjects without determining if these contacts reveal suspicious connections.'' And just as with section 215, the recipient is subject to an automatic, permanent gag rule.

NSLs can be used to obtain three categories of business records, while section 215 orders can be used to obtain ``any tangible things.'' But even the categories reachable by an NSL are quite broad, and the PATRIOT Act and subsequent legislation expanded them further.

Specifically, NSLs can be used to obtain the following: First, subscriber and transactional information related to Internet and phone usage, including information about the phone numbers and e-mail addresses that an individual is in communication with. Second, full credit reports. Prior to the PATRIOT Act, the FBI could not get a full credit report without obtaining a court order--it could only obtain what is called ``credit header'' information, which includes name, current and former addresses, current and former places of employment, and the names of financial institutions at which the individual has accounts. But the PATRIOT Act expanded that authority to include full credit reports, which generally include many personal details about loans, credit scores, and other aspects of individuals' financial situations. And the third category is financial records, a category that includes bank transactions but also was expanded in 2002 to include records from all kinds of everyday businesses like jewelers, car dealers, travel agents and even casinos.

Unfortunately, the PATRIOT Act reauthorization legislation that was enacted last year--over my opposition--did nothing to address the standard for issuing an NSL. It left in place the breathtakingly broad ``relevance'' or ``sought for'' standards. Not only that, but it left in place the automatic gag rule for NSL recipients, albeit with a new exception for notifying a lawyer.

What did the reauthorization legislation do with regard to NSLs? Well, primarily it created the illusion of judicial review, both for the letters themselves and for the accompanying gag rule. At a Judiciary Committee hearing this week, the FBI Director pointed to this after-the-fact judicial review provision as a privacy protection for NSLs. But if you look at the details, it was drafted in a way that makes that review virtually meaningless. With regard to the NSLs themselves, the reauthorization permits recipients to consult their lawyer and seek judicial review, but it also allows the Government to keep all of its submissions secret and not share them with the challenger, regardless of whether there are national security interests at stake.

The other significant problem with the judicial review provisions is the standard for getting the gag rule overturned. In order to prevail, the recipient has to prove that any certification by the Government that disclosure would harm national security or impair diplomatic relations was made in bad faith. This is a standard of review that is virtually impossible to meet.

Now, judicial review is not at issue in the IG's report, and indeed, the chances that a business receiving an NSL would seek judicial review rather than just comply are relatively slim, but I think it is important to point out that even on the one issue that the reauthorization legislation did address with regard to NSLs, judicial review, the result was entirely inadequate.

I want to make one additional point about national security letters. There is a crucial difference between obtaining records in national security investigations and in standard criminal investigations. As the General Counsel of the FBI testified before the House Judiciary Committee last week, actions in national security investigations ``are typically taken in secret and they don't have the transparency of the criminal justice system.'' She explained that in the criminal system, agents know that ``if they mess up during the course of an investigation, they're going to be cross-examined, they're going to have a federal district judge yelling at them.'' That means that more vigorous controls and compliance mechanisms are needed with respect to sensitive authorities like national security letters than their analogues in the criminal justice system--something I think the inspector general report demonstrates.

With that background, what did the inspector general find as a result of his audit of the use of NSLs from 2003 to 2005? He found that even the very limited protections in the existing statute were not being followed.

The inspector general found, based on FBI records, that the FBI's use of NSLs expanded exponentially after the PATRIOT Act, moving from approximately 8,500 requests in 2000, to 39,000 requests in 2003, 56,000 requests in 2004, and 47,000 requests in 2005. The total number of requests was 143,074 over the 3-year period.

But the inspector general also found that even those numbers are inaccurate because the FBI had no policies in place with respect to the retention or tracking of NSLs. In many cases, agents did not even keep copies of signed NSLs. As a result, the FBI significantly undercounted its NSL requests. In a sample of 77 case files that the IG looked at, the NSL requests were undercounted by roughly 22 percent.

Although it is hard to know how much can be extrapolated from that figure, if that figure holds throughout the Bureau, that could mean that there were roughly 30,000 more NSL requests issued that the FBI didn't keep track of. That is appalling--that the privacy rights of Americans would be treated so cavalierly that there are potentially tens of thousands of NSL requests out there that the FBI itself doesn't even have a record of. And it resulted in inaccurate information being reported to Congress about the use of NSLs, raising another grave concern.

What else did the inspector general find? He found that the use of NSL requests regarding U.S. persons--that is, citizens and legal permanent residents--shifted from 39 percent of all NSL requests in 2003 to 53 percent of all NSL requests in 2005, at least with respect to the NSL requests for which the FBI kept track of the U.S person status of the target. And, until 2006, the FBI did not keep track of how many NSL requests pertain to individuals who are not the subjects of authorized national security investigations. Obviously, if the FBI is using NSLs frequently to obtain information about people who are not the subjects of open investigations, that would present serious concerns about their use.

The inspector general also found that the FBI significantly underreported violations of the NSL statutes and internal guidelines from 2003 to 2005, with respect to notifying both the FBI's Office of General Counsel, or OGC, and the President's Intelligence Oversight Board, or IOB, as required by Executive order. FBI employees did report 26 violations to OGC, but the IG found examples of 22 more unreported violations in 17 investigative case files out of a sample of 77 investigative files in 4 field offices.

Some of these were significant violations, others less so. But that means that 22 percent of investigative files surveyed by the IG contained one or more violations not identified by the FBI or reported to the Intelligence Oversight Board, as required. According to the IG, ``we have no reason to believe that the number of NSL-related possible IOB violations we identified in the four field offices was skewed or disproportionate to the number of possible IOB violations that exist in other

offices.'' Thus, the IG's findings ``suggest that a significant number of NSL-related possible IOB violations through the FBI have not been identified or reported by FBI personnel.''

What else did the inspector general find? Perhaps the most disturbing revelation in his report, among many disturbing revelations, is that on more than 700 occasions, the FBI obtained telephone toll billing records or subscriber information from 3 telephone companies without first issuing NSLs or grand jury subpoenas. Instead, it relied on what it called ``exigent letters'' signed by personnel not authorized by statute to sign NSLs. Although the Electronic Communications Privacy Act does contain an emergency provision permitting the FBI to obtain certain communications records in emergencies where there is an immediate threat to a person's physical safety, many of these exigent letters were issued, admittedly, in nonemergency circumstances. Indeed, they were used as a matter of course by one headquarters unit. This violated both the statute and internal FBI policy.

The inspector general also found that FBI headquarters issued more than 300 NSLs without determining whether there was an authorized investigation in progress. Issuing an NSL without tying it an authorized investigation is a violation of the statute.

The inspector general also found that internal FBI guidance on how to properly use NSLs was woefully lacking, and that even to the degree there were FBI policies in place to govern the use of NSLs, those policies were not being followed. In 60 percent of the 77 case files that the IG examined in detail, there was some infraction of FBI guidance. Sixty percent. That is absolutely astounding.

But that is not all. Once information is obtained through an NSL, the Inspector general reported that the FBI retains it indefinitely and uploads it into databases like the ``Investigative Data Warehouse,'' where it is retrievable by the thousands of authorized personnel, both inside and outside the FBI, who have access to these types of FBI databases. The FBI has no process for removing that information from its databases depending on the results of the investigation. So if a person's full credit report is obtained with an NSL as part of a preliminary investigation and that preliminary investigation is closed because the FBI determines that the person has done nothing wrong, it doesn't matter--the FBI can keep it anyway.

Although the FBI keeps all the data it collects using NSLs, it does not tag or mark that information to indicate that it was derived through an NSL. So the FBI does not track whether information from NSLs ends up in intelligence analysis products or is passed on to prosecutors for criminal investigations. You would think that these would be key indicators of the usefulness and effectiveness of NSLs, but that information is not available, other than anecdotally.

That is what the inspector general's report told us. The report revealed that the FBI took a shockingly cavalier attitude toward the privacy of innocent Americans in its implementation of the PATRIOT Act NSL authorities.

Congress meant for the inspector general's report to help it in its oversight of the use of national security letters, which are issued and enforced entirely in secret, and there is no question it has done that. The inspector general deserves a great deal of credit for his thorough and careful report. As I have already mentioned, much of the reporting to Congress on the use of NSLs since the PATRIOT Act has been inaccurate or misleading due to FBI recordkeeping problems, so having the results of this independent audit is invaluable.

But the report also reveals that the Justice Department essentially tried to whitewash this issue over the past several years. When Congress was considering whether to make changes to the NSL authorities as part of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization debate, the Attorney General came to Congress and resisted any changes, touting the strength of the checks on its power to obtain NSLs and assuring us that the power was being used carefully.

On April 5, 2005, Attorney General Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee, ``[T]he PATRIOT Act includes a lot of safeguards that critics of the Act choose to ignore.'' On November 23, 2005, the Justice Department wrote Senators Specter and Leahy a ten-page letter defending the FBI's use of National Security Letters, asserting that ``the use of NSLs is subject to significant internal oversight and checks,'' and that there are ``robust mechanisms for checking misuse,'' and that ``[t]he FBI must and does conduct its investigations within the bounds of our Constitution, statutes, strict internal guidelines, and Executive Orders.''

On December 14, 2005, the Washington Post quoted Attorney General Gonzales as saying, ``[T]he PATRIOT Act has already undergone extensive review and analysis by Congress, by the DOJ Inspector General, and by other bodies . . . This extensive review has uncovered not one verified example of abuse of any of the Act's provisions.''

It is now quite evident that the Attorney General must not have been looking very hard, and certainly not trying very hard to ensure the protection of Americans' privacy rights. There is a lot going on right now that suggests we should be skeptical of assurances from the Justice Department, but this report highlights just how overtly political, and how lacking in fact, were DOJ's representations regarding the implementation of the Patriot Act.

Indeed, as recently as November 2006, the Justice Department asserted--in response to an inspector general memo warning against the potential for abuse of national security letters--that the FBI is ``aggressively vigilant in guarding against any abuse,'' a claim we now know was simply false.

It is an understatement to say that the inspector general's report uncovered serious flaws in the use of national security letters. But these were flaws waiting to happen. It should not have taken this type of highly critical report to convince Congress to do something about such wide-ranging Government power.

In fact, a bipartisan group of Senators proposed changes to the NSL statutes years ago, in the Security and Freedom Enhancement Act, or SAFE, Act. I, along with Senators Craig, Durbin, Sununu, Murkowski, Salazar, and many others, pushed for changes to the NSL statutes to try to prevent precisely the types of abuses that have now come to light. For example, the SAFE Act would have required that agents demonstrate that the records pertain to a suspected terrorist or spy before the FBI can issue an NSL, rather than the extremely loose standard in the PATRIOT Act.

The SAFE Act also would have given the recipient of an NSL a meaningful right to challenge the letter and the nondisclosure requirement, and placed a time limit on the nondisclosure requirement, which could be extended by the court. As is the case for FISA authorities, the SAFE Act would have required notice to the target of an NSL if the Government sought to use the records obtained from the NSL in a subsequent proceeding and given the target an opportunity to challenge the use of those records.

So the idea that the NSL statutes need to be revised is not new. But the inspector general's report has now highlighted the need for legislation and suggested some problems with the statutes that had not previously been identified.

The time for changing the lax and unchecked system for issuing national security letters is now. The hearings the Judiciary Committee has held with the inspector general and the FBI Director have been immensely helpful.

But we must not stop there. Legislation is needed. During the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, we were unable to fix the NSL statutes. The administration and its supporters even refused to put a sunset on the NSL powers. So we need to act, and soon. I hope to work closely with the bipartisan group of Senators who cosponsored the SAFE Act. I plan to press for Senate action on sensible reforms to help prevent future abuses of national security letters.

Let me say, in conclusion, that this report shows beyond doubt that Congress made a grave mistake when it let this administration intimidate us into silence and inaction rather than protecting the rights and freedoms of the American people. The Justice Department's credibility concerning the powers contained in the PATRIOT Act is in

shreds. Congress needs to exercise extensive and searching oversight of those powers, and it must take corrective action. The inspector general's report has shown both that current safeguards are inadequate and that the Government cannot be trusted to exercise those powers lawfully. Congress must address these problems and fix the mistakes it made in passing and reauthorizing the flawed PATRIOT Act.

Mr. President, in recent weeks, we have seen a level of chaos and brutal violence in Mogadishu, Somalia, that is tragic and horrific, not to mention extremely dangerous to our national security interests. According to the U.N., 40,000 people fled Mogadishu in February, and conditions have only deteriorated this month. Humanitarian access is severely restricted. Ugandan troops serving in an African Union peacekeeping force have been attacked. Last week a cargo plane was shot down. The Transitional Federal Government has been overwhelmed by the violence, and appears unable or unwilling to work with rival clans and other opponents. A mere 3 months after the Ethiopian incursion, the TFG is isolated and a dangerous power vacuum is forming.

These are the conditions that permit terrorist organizations to operate in Somalia, as they have for years. Insecurity and lawlessness facilitated the rise of the Islamic courts in recent years and now circumstances are again conducive for extremist elements to regroup and return. In other words, without a consistent, comprehensive plan for fostering stability in Somalia, we could find ourselves faced with the same conditions that preceded the Ethiopian incursion against the courts and subsequent U.S. military operations.

The United States and the international community has approached Somalia, and continues to approach Somalia, sporadically, with policy made on the fly and with few resources directed toward long-term political and economic development. When required by Congress to provide a comprehensive plan for Somalia, the Administration has failed to do so. In February, when I asked the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs why this legally mandated report was overdue, she indicated that that the Department was busy responding to ``fast-moving events on the ground.'' But that is precisely the problem. Ad hoc approaches to Somalia have not worked; they have never worked. There was no comprehensive plan last year, when the Islamic courts took advantage of years of civil conflict to consolidate their power. There was no plan when Ethiopian troops entered Somalia, even though the international community had no ready peacekeeping capability to follow. There was no plan when the TFG was installed in Mogadishu with no effective international framework to ensure that it could govern. And there was no broader plan when U.S.

airstrikes pursued targets in a country that, unless policies change, will remain a terrorist safe haven for years to come.

None of what we are seeing in Somalia today should come as a surprise. Last fall, Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles was loudly proclaiming his intention to go into Somalia. In my own meeting with Meles in early December, he told me exactly what he intended to do. He would enter Somalia, he would teach the Islamic courts a lesson, and he would withdraw. Ethiopia, he told me, had neither the capability nor the desire to engage in nation building. I asked him about the instability that might ensue and warned him against an invasion. The lessons from Iraq were perhaps inevitable and we discussed them. Yet Meles was committed to a strike against the Islamic courts, regardless of what would follow. In other words, quick military action was, from his perspective, in Ethiopia's national interests, even without an adequate international political framework or a robust peacekeeping capability.

That does not mean, however, that this was in America's national interests. I do not know if the Ethiopian incursion would have occurred if the United States had sought to stop it. I do know that the ruins left behind by this incursion were foreseeable and there was no excuse for the United States and the international community to have been caught so shamefully unprepared.

As I warned in January, even after the incursion there was a brief window of opportunity to bring some stability to Somalia. That window may have now closed. Still, we have no choice but to do what we should have been doing all along. It is in our interest to increase support for the peacekeepers who are currently being asked to police a state of chaos. It is in our interest to identify economic resources that could be used for development in Somalia and as an incentive for stability and representative government. And it is in our interest to promote a broad, international framework for stability in Somalia. It is not acceptable for the Transitional Federal Government to resist the tough political choices--including the inclusion of rival factions and clans--necessary to establish an effective national government that is seen as credible and legitimate by its own people as well as the international community. It is the Somalis who suffer when there is no representative government, and it is the terrorists who benefit. And it is irresponsible for other countries in the region to pursue their separate, conflicting agendas in Somalia rather than contribute to a sustainable compromise.

The stabilization and reconstruction of Somalia will not happen without a real commitment of attention and political capital from the United States. We must appoint a Special Envoy to work fulltime on Somalia and the Horn of Africa. The ambassadors in the region all have their own host countries to worry about every day. And it is not an option for the Secretary of State to be ``in the lead on our Somalia policy,'' as the Assistant Secretary stated in February. Such unfocused leadership results in precisely the kind of sporadic response to events in Somalia that has so utterly failed us.

Last week, the violence in Mogadishu took a grisly and familiar turn: the dragging and mutilating of bodies through the streets. It was these kinds of images that helped prompt the United States to turn away from Somalia 15 years ago. But, as we learned in Nairobi and Tanzania in 1998, when we turn away from Somalia, we invite disaster. That does not mean that there was a military solution in 1993--certainly, the poorly defined U.S. military mission in Somalia 14 years ago was not a solution. Nor does it mean that there is a military solution now. Airstrikes can never, by themselves, dry up a terrorist safe haven, nor can they bring to power a stable government with which we can work to pursue our mutual interests.

Yet all too often, military options are all we consider, all we plan for, and all we devote resources to. High-level diplomacy has been neglected. Economic investments have been short-changed. And, worst of all, those who are supposed to be leaders on this issue have already gotten distracted.

We cannot afford to let history repeat itself. If we do not act, conditions will continue to deteriorate. Civilians will die. Extremists who offer the promise of a modicum of security will not only emerge, but will be welcomed by a population desperate for some peace. Terrorist networks will thrive. And plots against the United States will be hatched.

The longer we continue to neglect Somalia, the longer we potentially undermine our own national security.

Mr. President, I strongly oppose the Cochran amendment, which would strike language in the bill that takes a significant step toward ending our involvement in the war in Iraq.

The language I am referring to won the support of 48 Senators just a few weeks ago. I voted for it then and will vote to retain it today. While it does not go as far or as fast as I would like, it would effectively end the President's misguided policies in Iraq by terminating, within 120 days, the current open-ended military mission in Iraq. At that point, U.S. troops could remain in Iraq for three specified, narrow purposes. The remainder of our troops would be redeployed. This provision is binding and it would bring to an end our current involvement in perhaps the greatest foreign policy mistake in our country's history.

Some of my colleagues continue to argue that Congress should defer to the Commander in Chief when it comes to Iraq, that we should give him the opportunity to change course in Iraq, or that we should allow his escalation plan the chance to succeed. Those arguments ignore our congressional responsibilities. Congress authorized this war and it is in our power to bring it to a close. More importantly, we have not just the power but the responsibility to end a war that is draining vital national security resources in pursuit of a goal that cannot be achieved militarily. The political problems that are driving much of the insurgency and sectarian strife in Iraq are tragic and important. They require the attention of U.S. policymakers. They do not require in fact, they cannot be solved by a massive and indefinite U.S. military presence in Iraq. Our troops continue to perform heroically in Iraq but there is no military solution to Iraq's problems.

Some of my colleagues raise the specter of dire consequences if we redeploy U.S. forces from Iraq. That is precisely why we need a strategic approach to redeployment, one that addresses ongoing instability and other threats with our intelligence, diplomatic, economic and, in a limited manner, military capabilities. Not only is the continuation of this war not going to end sectarian and insurgent violence, it puts off the day when we develop a comprehensive strategy for Iraq that is sustainable and fits squarely within the larger struggle of fighting al-Qaida.

As long as the President's policies continue, our troops will continue to put their lives on the line, our constituents will continue putting billions of their dollars into this war, our military readiness will continue to erode, our Guard and Reserve members will continue to face heavy burdens, and our ability to respond to an array of national security challenges will continue to suffer. From Somalia to Afghanistan to the ongoing fight against al-Qaida, we face threats and challenges that require serious attention and resources. Right now, far too much of both are being spent on a single country. It is this single-minded and self-defeating policy that needs to end, and it is up to Congress to do so.

Time and again, the President has made it clear that nothing not the wishes of the American people, not the advice of military and foreign policy experts, not the concerns of members of both parties will dissuade him from pursuing policies in Iraq that are not working. Faced with a clear mandate from the voters last November, he stalled for time, before announcing not just a continuation but an escalation of his policies. Congress cannot wait for the President to change course we need to change the course ourselves.

The provision that Senator Cochran seeks to strike represents a change of course. It requires redeployment of our troops while recognizing that the U.S. has an ongoing role to play in addressing the terrorist threat in Iraq. While Iraq was not a hot-bed of terrorism before the President led us to war in that country, al-Qaida and its allies are trying to use the anger and frustrations unleashed by that war to their advantage. Like Afghanistan and Somalia, Iraq will need to be closely monitored to ensure that it does not become a failed state and breeding ground for terrorism. And we must be prepared to pursue targeted missions to take out terrorists. But maintaining 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq is not the way to defeat al-Qaida. And military operations of any size will only succeed if they are combined with other measures including diplomatic, economic and intelligence measures as part of a comprehensive strategy for defeating the terrorists who threaten our country. Al-Qaida is not a one-country franchise it is a global threat that requires a global response.

Mr. President, last week the Senate Judiciary Committee held its second hearing on the unprecedented dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys in December. In the past few days, increasingly disturbing information has come to light that suggests that Congress was intentionally misled with regard to why these U.S. attorneys were fired and who was involved in making the decision to fire them. Under the leadership of Chairman Leahy and Senator Schumer, the Judiciary Committee will continue to investigate these matters in the coming weeks.

But today, we will vote on legislation to repeal a change in the law that apparently helped to bring about these unfortunate events. I will vote in favor of S. 214 and against both amendments that have been offered.

In many ways, U.S. attorneys are the face of the Federal Government and of Federal law in our local jurisdictions. They make crucial decisions on how federal law will be enforced. To faithfully execute the law, they must be able to exercise that essential prosecutorial discretion that distinguishes our criminal justice system from a mere draconian rule book that is applied without regard for the circumstances of each individual case. Who fills these positions in our system is a matter of great consequence. That is why they are subject to confirmation by the Senate.

In Wisconsin, we take the nomination process for our two U.S. attorneys, and the participation of the Senate in that process, very seriously. In 1979, Senators William Proxmire and Gaylord Nelson created the Wisconsin Federal Nominating Commission to advise them on judicial and U.S. attorney nominations. The Commission process has been used for over a quarter century, by both Republican and Democratic senators from our State under both Republican and Democratic Presidents.

The Commission operates whenever a vacancy occurs for a Federal judge or U.S. attorney position in Wisconsin. The Commission reviews applications and then makes recommendations to the Senators. The two Wisconsin Senators, now Senator Kohl and myself, choose from those recommended by the Commission in making our recommendations to the President. This bipartisan Commission helps ensure that dedicated and qualified individuals fill the positions. It gives our citizens additional assurance that these important nominations are made based on merit, not politics. I believe commissions like this are a particularly reliable and transparent form of filling these vacancies.

That is one reason that I feel so strongly that the change made during the PATRIOT Act reauthorization process to the process for appointing interim U.S. attorneys was a mistake: It allows the Justice Department to sidestep the confirmation process for U.S. attorneys altogether. There is simply no good reason why the Attorney General needs the power to make indefinite interim appointments. When it exercises that power, the administration cuts Congress, and in the case of my state, the people of Wisconsin, out of that process.

As some of the recently released emails from the Attorney General's chief of staff reveal, this change in law allowing the Attorney General to make indefinite interim appointments was going to be used to circumvent congressional involvement and instead install preselected ``interim'' replacements for the fired U.S. attorneys with no intention to seek Senate confirmation. Worse yet, the emails indicate that the Department of Justice was actively planning to pretend it was following a traditional confirmation process ``in good faith.'' Such blatant disregard for Congress's legitimate role in this process--and for the integrity of a three branch system of government in general--is simply unacceptable.

S. 214 will repeal the provision that prompted this plan to circumvent the confirmation process. Enacting this bill is an important start in preventing further abuses.

I want to note that the concerns expressed by some of my colleagues about the involvement of the district courts in making interim appointments just don't ring true. Beginning in the late 1800s, and continuing until the fiasco of this past year, district courts were involved in the interim appointment process. In the time that the district courts were involved, either exclusively--until 1986--or as a fail-safe after the Attorney General exercised a temporary appointment power--from 1986-2006--the interim appointment process went smoothly. Never before have we seen an administration hatch a plan to replace a large number of U.S. attorneys in the middle of a term for what appear to be political reasons. The reason, of course, is that until this year, individuals appointed on an interim basis could only serve for 120 days without Senate confirmation.

By repealing this clearly ill-advised change to interim appointment power and returning to the law used for the previous 20 years, S. 214 allows for the needed flexibility to accommodate short-term interim appointments made by the Attorney General while also ensuring that the Senate confirmation process remains in place for permanent appointments. And the Senate confirmation process allows states like mine to encourage a transparent and accountable selection process for these important positions.

These are grave matters, for it is absolutely vital that our citizens be able to rely on the integrity of the justice system. It is equally important that they have confidence that individuals who represent the Federal Government in the justice system are above reproach, and are acting in the interest of justice--and not politics--at all times. Even an appearance of impropriety can harm our judicial system and, in turn, harm the rule of law by undermining citizens' confidence in its integrity.

Whatever role political motivations played in the dismissals of these U.S. attorneys--and each day more evidence surfaces to suggest that politics did, in fact, play quite a large role--I think it

is clear that the administration has not acted in a manner that upholds the best interests of law enforcement and the reputation of our criminal justice system. We have a duty to remedy this problem, and passing S. 214 is an important step towards doing so.

We must ensure that there is, once again, some accountability in how U.S. attorneys are selected to serve. It is the very least that we can do to help restore the public's confidence that our criminal justice system is above partisan interference.

Madam President, I spoke yesterday in favor of the resolution introduced by Senator Reid, S.J. Res. 9. By bringing the current open-ended military mission to a close and requiring the funding of U.S. troops, the Reid resolution takes a significant, binding step toward ending our involvement in the war in Iraq. I am pleased that the Senate will have the opportunity to vote on that resolution shortly.

The Senate will also be voting, as the Senator from Louisiana just pointed out, on another resolution regarding Iraq sponsored by the senior Senator from New Hampshire. Unfortunately, this resolution is badly flawed, and I strongly oppose it. My chief objection is simple. The resolution rejects the idea of Congress using its power of the purse to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq. Moreover, it does so in a manner that can only be described as inaccurate and almost intellectually dishonest. By warning against ``the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field,'' the resolution fully embraces the misleading rhetoric the White House has used to try to prevent serious discussion of Congress ending the war. Those who engage in such rhetoric pretend that cutting off funds for the war is the same as cutting off funds for the troops. They raise the specter of troops somehow being left on the battlefield without the training, equipment, and resources they need.

Obviously, nothing could be further from the truth. Every Member of Congress agrees we must continue to support our troops and give them the resources and support they need. Not a single Member would ever vote for any proposal that would jeopardize the safety of our troops. Using our power of the purse to end our involvement in the war can and would be done without in any way impairing the safety of our brave servicemembers. By setting a date after which funding for the war will be terminated, as I have proposed, Congress can safely bring our troops out of harm's way.

How can I say this with such confidence? There really is plenty of precedent for Congress exercising its constitutional authority to stop U.S. involvement in armed conflict.

I recently chaired a Judiciary Committee hearing entitled ``Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power To End a War.'' Without exception, every witness--those called by the majority and those called by the minority--did not challenge the constitutionality of Congress's authority to end a war. Lou Fisher with the Library of Congress, one of the foremost experts on separation of powers issues, pointed out that Congress does not simply have the power, it has a responsibility, to exercise it when it is needed. He said:

The question to me, always remember, Congress, is the

continued use of military force and a military commitment in

the Nation's interest? That is the core question. Once you

decide that, if you decide it is not in the national

interest, you certainly do not want to continue putting U.S.

troops in harm's way.

The argument that cutting off funding for a flawed policy would hurt the troops, and that continuing to put U.S.

troops in harm's way supports the troops, makes no sense. By ending funding for the war, we can bring our troops safely out of Iraq.

Walter Dellinger of the Duke Law School made this point when he testified about my proposal:

There would not be one penny less for the salary of the

troops. There would not be one penny less for the benefit of

the troops. There would not be one penny less for weapons or

ammunition. There would not be one penny less for supplies or

for support. Those troops would simply be redeployed to other

areas where the armed forces are utilized.

So instead of allowing the President's failed policy to continue, Congress can and should use its power of the purse to end our involvement in the Iraq war, safely redeploying the troops while ensuring, as I do in my bill and as the Reid resolution permits, that important counterterrorism and other limited operations are still carried out.

Now, for those who don't believe this has ever been done or for those who say it can't be done, let me cite an example from not that long ago. In October of 1993, Congress enacted an amendment sponsored by the senior Senator from West Virginia cutting off funding--cutting off funding for military operations in Somalia effective March 31, 1994, with limited exceptions. Seventy-six Senators voted for that amendment. Many of them are still in this body, such as Senator Cochran, Senator Domenici, Senator Hutchison, Senator Lugar, Senator McConnell, Senator Specter, Senator Stevens, and Senator Warner.

Now, did those eight Senators and many Democratic Senators who joined them act to jeopardize the safety and security of U.S. troops in Somalia? By cutting off funds for a military mission, were they indifferent to the well-being of our brave men and women in uniform? Of course not. All of these Members recognized that Congress had the power and the responsibility to bring our military operations in Somalia to a close by establishing a date after which the funds would be terminated.

Now, on that same day with regard to Somalia, several Senators, myself included, supported an even stronger effort to end funding for operations in Somalia. The amendment offered by Senator McCain on October 15, 1993, would have eliminated funding for Somalia right away, except for funds for withdrawal, or in the case of American POWs, MIAs not being accounted for. Thirty-eight Senators opposed a measure to table that amendment. I was joined by many Republican Senators in supporting the amendment, including none other than the current sponsor of S. Con. Res. 20, Senator Gregg. Senator Gregg suggests in that resolution that eliminating funds for troops would undermine their safety. Was he voting 14 years ago to do that? Obviously, he would not do that. In 1993, was he committing the same egregious offense that he so strongly opposes in 2007? Could he have been so cavalier about the safety of our troops? Not the Senator I know. He would never have been indifferent to their need for guns or ammunition or food or clothing, nor would I, nor would any other Member of this body. Of course not.

Senator Gregg knew, as did I, that Senator McCain was proposing an appropriate, safe, responsible way to use our power of the purse to bring an ill-conceived military mission to a close without in any way harming our troops.

Unfortunately, the new Gregg resolution seems to have forgotten this point. I hope that my colleagues will think better of efforts such as that proposed by Senator Gregg today. All Senators, including the distinguished senior Senator from New Hampshire, are, of course, entitled to their opinions, and all Senators are certainly entitled to oppose my efforts to end funding for a disastrous war. But by putting forth misleading and baseless arguments, by suggesting that ending funding for the war is tantamount to ending funding for the troops, they are making it that much harder to have the open, honest, and essential debate about the Iraq war that this body and the American people so badly need.

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

Madam President, I am pleased the Senate has voted to allow debate on the Iraq war to go forward. It is far past time we had this important debate. It is far past time we brought our involvement in this misguided war to a close.

Under the strong leadership of Senator Reid, the Democratic caucus has produced a joint resolution that takes a significant step toward ending our involvement in the war in Iraq. I support the resolution, and I hope my colleagues will do the same.

The resolution does not go as far as I would like. I continue to believe the only way we are ultimately going to end the President's failed policies in Iraq is by exercising Congress's power of the purse to safely bring our troops out of Iraq. I have introduced legislation that would do that, and I will continue to look for every opportunity to bring up my bill for a vote.

I will support this resolution because it avoids the mistakes of previous proposals to address Iraq. It does not allow the President's misguided policies to continue. It does not tacitly reauthorize the war. It does not focus solely on the so-called surge. This is binding legislation that would bring to an end our involvement in perhaps the greatest foreign policy mistake in our country's history.

Some of my colleagues continue to argue that Congress should defer to the Commander in Chief when it comes to Iraq, that we should give him the opportunity to change course in Iraq or that we should allow his escalation plan a chance to succeed. Those arguments ignore our congressional responsibilities.

Madam President, at the conclusion of my remarks, I would be happy to yield.

Congress authorized this war, and it is in our power to bring it to a close. More importantly, we have not just the power but the responsibility to end a war that is draining vital national security resources in pursuit of a goal that cannot be achieved militarily.

The political problems that are driving much of the insurgency and sectarian strife in Iraq are tragic and important. They require the attention of U.S. policymakers. They do not require--in fact, they cannot be solved by--a massive and indefinite U.S. military presence in Iraq.

Some of my colleagues raise the specter of dire consequences if we redeploy U.S. forces from Iraq. That is precisely why we need a strategic approach to redeployment, one that addresses ongoing instability and other threats, with our intelligence, diplomatic, economic and, in a limited manner, military capabilities. Not only is the continuation of this war not going to end sectarian and insurgent violence, it puts off the day when we develop a comprehensive strategy for Iraq that is sustainable, and that fits squarely within the larger struggle of fighting al-Qaida.

As long as the President's policies continue, our troops will continue to put their lives on the line, our constituents will continue putting billions of their dollars into this war, our military readiness will continue to erode, our Guard and Reserve members will continue to face heavy burdens, and our ability to respond to an array of national security challenges will continue to suffer a great deal. From Somalia to Afghanistan to the ongoing fight against al-Qaida, we face threats and challenges that require serious attention and resources. Right now, far too much of both are being spent on a single country. It is this singleminded and self-defeating policy that needs to end, and it is up to Congress to do so.

Time and again, the President has made it clear that nothing--not the wishes of the American people, not the advice of military and foreign policy experts, not the concerns of Members of both parties--will dissuade him from pursuing policies in Iraq that are not working. Faced with a clear mandate from the voters last November, the President just stalled for time, and then he announced not just a continuation but an escalation of his policy. So Congress cannot wait for the President to change course. We need to change the course ourselves.

This resolution recognizes, and acts on, that reality. It would effectively terminate the misguided resolution authorizing force in Iraq, while allowing a minimal number of troops to remain to perform very limited functions: protecting personnel and infrastructure, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting certain targeted counterterrorism operations. The latter provision is a particular priority of mine, which is why my original legislation includes exactly the same language.

Clearly, the United States has an ongoing role to play in addressing the terrorist threat in Iraq. While Iraq was not a hotbed of terrorism before the President led us to war in that country, al-Qaida and its allies are trying to use the anger and frustrations unleashed by that war to their advantage. Like Afghanistan and Somalia, Iraq will need to be closely monitored to ensure that it does not become a failed state and a breeding ground for terrorism, and we must be prepared to pursue targeted missions to take out terrorists.

But maintaining 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq is not the way to defeat al-Qaida. Military operations of any size will only succeed if they are combined with other measures--including diplomatic, economic, and intelligence measures--as part of a comprehensive strategy for defeating the terrorists who threaten our country. Al-Qaida is

not a one-country franchise; it is a global threat that requires a global response.

The Reid resolution would require the President to begin redeploying combat forces not essential to the three limited functions I just mentioned within 120 days, with a goal of finishing redeployment by the end of March 2008. While I support a faster redeployment with a firm deadline, these provisions are, in fact, binding and would make clear that the President's commitment to an open-ended, massive military mission in Iraq is over. That is what the American people want, and that is what this Congress should ensure.

Regardless of what happens this week, I believe the introduction of this resolution, with the cosponsorship of some 41 Senators, represents a significant step toward ending the war. The overwhelming majority of Democrats are saying that the war must come to a close and that they are prepared to take binding steps to do just that. The question each of us will face as this debate continues is how to best end our involvement in the war and redeploy our troops.

I look forward to the opportunity to offer an amendment to the upcoming supplemental that would actually use Congress's appropriations power to require the safe redeployment of our troops. While I do not agree with much of what has been said by those in this body who continue to defend a disastrous war, they are right about one point: If we are serious about opposing the war, we must be serious about ending funding for the war.

I am pleased the Senate has voted to allow debate on the Reid resolution to go forward. Unfortunately, however, some in this body continue to make arguments that undermine the ability of Congress to have a serious discussion about the Iraq war. They fail to recognize that this body has an obligation to address the most pressing issue facing the country today and respond to the overwhelming sentiment of our constituents. They purport to defend the President's prerogatives and the morale and well-being of our troops, but their rhetoric has the effect of trying to stifle open and honest debate.

While I cannot speak for the President, I am confident our troops, and our constituents, are ready for this debate. They know that in a democracy such as ours, discussion of major foreign policy issues can and should be conducted openly. So I am glad the Senate is beginning such a discussion today, and I will continue pushing this body to finally bring to a close our involvement in a war that has been a disaster on so many fronts.

Madam President, I am now happy to yield for a question to the Senator from Kansas.

Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from Kansas, first of all, for his kind words and for listening to my speech and for being present to do so. He has endangered himself politically by saying kind words about me and my resolution in front of some groups who may find that a little strange. But I do enjoy working with him, and I especially enjoyed working with him when he was the chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

I, of course, want to do exactly what the Senator from Kansas has said. I want to have a debate and a vote on the approach I have suggested. As I just indicated in my remarks, I believe that is the next thing which needs to happen after we have this debate.

Just so the record is clear, though, the Democrats have agreed to vote on S.J. Res. 9 and the McCain amendment and the Gregg amendment and the Warner resolution, as well as the Reid resolution. So the Republicans objected to that.

I would like to do that, but I think probably the appropriate place to do that is the supplemental.

I would object on behalf of the leadership because I agreed that this should be the next step and we should take up this resolution.

I say to the Senator from Kansas, this resolution before us, the Reid resolution, makes perfect sense. What it does is it says: Look, we no longer believe the authorization that was given in 2002 makes sense, and it severely limits that resolution and moves us in the right direction. So I think that is the proper step. The supplemental bill is about to come up. I think that is the right place, given that it has to do with funding, for the type of amendment I have suggested. So I would object on behalf of the leadership.

But I do look forward very much to the day not only when we debate this but when I persuade you that it is a good idea that we cut off the funding in order to bring the troops safely home--which, by the way, is what we did--and I assume Senator Roberts was involved in this as well--with Somalia. The Senator remembers ``Black Hawk Down.'' He knows it well. We lost 18 people. We decided: This isn't working out. This isn't a good idea. What did the Senate do? It passed legislation that said by a certain date we will no longer fund this military mission, but it gave plenty of time to get the troops out, and they got out successfully. That is the nature of what I propose to do with an amendment on the supplemental.

Step 1 was our vote here in this body and in the House to say that the surge was unwise, and a majority did vote for that here, as well as in the House. This is step 2. This says that the fundamental underpinnings of this mistake should be reversed, that the resolution authorizing force in Iraq should be reversed. Yes, step 3, in my view, would be saying--to enforce it. Since the President won't listen to us, we need to turn to the ultimate power, the one the Senator from Kansas and I both agree is the appropriate power in this situation; that is, whether to use the power of the purse to remove funding.

We are on step 2.

I think we would be best to do it on the supplemental. That seems to be the appropriate vehicle.

We need to get to that.

I think the Senator from Kansas is on shaky ground with some people now. But I think the Senator from Kansas should know that we are essentially in the heat of agreement here; the only question is the order in which it should happen. The exact questions the Senator has discussed should be debated in the Senate. I hope they are debated soon. Guess what. We just had a debate, so we are having a debate, and this is the beginning, and we will continue it.

I thank the Senator from Kansas, and I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I want to add my thoughts to the debate on the Improving America's Security Act of 2007.

First, I preface my remarks by applauding the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee for their work on this important bill. This bill makes crucial and long overdue improvements in transportation security, critical infrastructure protection, and emergency response capabilities. There is no higher priority than protecting homeland security, and this bill is a key component in that effort.

Nearly 6 years since the horrific attacks of September 11, we are still struggling to give our first responders, law enforcement officers, and the employees of the Department of Homeland Security the resources they need to keep us safe. I thank these brave men and women who work daily to protect this Nation. They are on the front lines of the fight against terrorism. They are the ones who are called on to stop and respond to any future attack upon our Nation. This bill includes important resources these brave men and women need to perform their critical tasks.

I am pleased that the Senate has increased funding for State homeland security grants, emergency management performance grants, emergency communications and the Urban Area Security Initiative. I have long advocated for greater funding of emergency management grants because they are crucial in assisting State and local officials in preparing for all-hazards emergencies. These grants provide emergency managers with the resources they need to increase coordination and planning so that if an emergency occurs, State and local officials will respond much more efficiently and effectively.

It is my hope that this bill represents a lasting shift in priorities, a shift towards an enhanced focus on the most pressing threats facing our country. We are still spending almost twice as much on Iraq as is allocated for homeland security, diplomacy, and international assistance combined. The billions we spend each month in Iraq could be invested in the protection of critical infrastructure and our system of national preparedness and response that failed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. As we consider the budget resolution and the defense and homeland security appropriations bills this year, I encourage my colleagues to take a broader view when it comes to our national security priorities and make the tradeoffs that must be made.

I am particularly pleased that the Federal Agency Data Mining Reporting Act is included in this bill as section 504. I have been working on this legislation for a number of years with Senator Sununu, Senator Leahy, and Senator Akaka. I am glad that Senator Sununu and Senator Akaka successfully offered the legislation as an amendment to S. 4 when it was before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Many law-abiding Americans are understandably concerned about the specter of secret government programs analyzing vast quantities of public and private data about their pursuits, in search of patterns of suspicious activity. Four years after we first learned about the Defense Department's program called Total Information Awareness, there is still much Congress does not know about the Federal Government's work on data mining. This bill is an important step in allowing Congress to conduct oversight of any such programs or related research development efforts.

The Federal Agency Data Mining Reporting Act would require Federal agencies to report annually on their development and use of data mining technologies to discover predictive or anomalous patterns indicating criminal or terrorist activity the types of pattern-based data analysis that raise the most serious privacy concerns. As amended on the floor, it would also allow classified information, law enforcement sensitive information, trade secrets, and proprietary business information to be provided to the relevant committees separately, in a nonpublic form, under appropriate security measures.

Intelligence and law enforcement agencies would not be doing their job if they did not take advantage of new technologies. But when it comes to pattern-based data mining, Congress needs to understand whether it can be effective in identifying terrorists, and Congress needs to consider the privacy and civil liberties implications of deploying such technology domestically. I hope these reports will help Congress--and to the extent possible, the public--finally understand what is going on behind the closed doors of the executive branch, so that we can start to have the policy discussion about data mining that is long overdue.

I am concerned about the ongoing development of the Information Sharing Environment without adequate privacy and civil liberties guidelines. In the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Congress mandated that the President create an Information Sharing Environment, ISE, for the sharing of terrorism information among Federal agencies, State and local governments, and the private sector. This is a critical goal in our counterterrorism efforts. But that legislation also required that the President issue privacy guidelines for the ISE, in recognition of the serious privacy and civil liberties implications of facilitating more sharing of information among these entities. Those privacy guidelines were issued in December, but in my view are wholly inadequate. They touch on the most significant privacy issues and provide a framework for agencies to think about the privacy issues that might arise, but they do not include specific guidelines and rules for protecting privacy. That is why I filed an amendment to S. 4 that would have provided more direction to the ISE program manager about what should be included in these privacy guidelines and the need for more specific government-wide rules for the ISE. I was disappointed that my amendment was not included, but will continue to work to ensure that the guidelines for implementation of the ISE are sufficient to protect the privacy of Americans.

The bill mandates the declassification of the aggregate amount of the intelligence budget. This reform has a long history going back to the Church and Pike Commissions. It is supported by the current Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. It was also one of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which stated that ``when even aggregate categorical numbers remain hidden it is hard to judge priorities and foster accountability.'' I concur with the Commission, that aggregate budget figures ``provid[e] little insight into U.S. intelligence sources and methods.'' Sharing this information with the American people will, however, provide a greater level of transparency and accountability and in the end make us more secure.

I was pleased to support Senator McCaskill's amendment to ensure that workers at the Transportation Security Administration are afforded the same workplace protections as other DHS employees. The low retention rate at TSA resulting in part from lack of workers' rights threatens our security. This amendment will address this concern while giving administrators the flexibility they need to respond to imminent threats.

I am pleased that this bill includes provisions to ensure proper oversight of homeland security grants. I am deeply troubled by reports of improper

oversight of expenditures at DHS, including an article in the Washington Post last November stating that the Department was unable to locate one-third of the files needed to perform an audit of its contracts. I therefore supported Senator Coburn's amendment to require DHS to perform audits on homeland security grants. While I understand concerns that this requirement could have led to delays in the issuance of grants in fiscal year 2008, I did not think it was unreasonable to require DHS to conduct the audits required in a timely manner. I will continue to work with my colleagues to improve oversight of homeland security funding.

I supported several amendments that would have added funding for critical security needs not fully addressed in this bill. I do not take lightly a decision to vote in favor of spending more money. Fiscal responsibility is one of my highest priorities, but it is imperative that we provide the resources needed to combat terrorism.

I voted for this bill because it makes key changes to address security needs. However, our Nation's vulnerabilities demand more and I will continue to work to ensure that our vital homeland security needs are met.

Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator Collins from Maine, I am introducing legislation to help businesses form group-purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, to reduce health care rates, and to improve quality for their employees' health care.

High health care costs are burdening businesses and employees across the Nation. These costs are digging into profits and preventing access to affordable health care. Too many patients feel trapped by the system, with decisions about their health dictated by costs rather than by what they need.

Nationally, the annual average cost to an employer for an individual employee's health care is $3,615. For a family, the employer contribution is $8,508. We must curb these rapidly increasing health care costs. I strongly support initiatives to ensure that everyone has access to health care. It is crucial that we support successful local initiatives to reduce health care premiums and to improve the quality of employees' health care.

By using group purchasing to obtain rate discounts, some employers have been able to reduce the cost of health care premiums for their employees. According to the National Business Coalition on Health, there are nearly 80 employer-led coalitions across the United States that collectively purchase health care. Through these pools, businesses are able to proactively challenge high costs and inefficient delivery of health care and share information on quality. These coalitions represent over 10,000 employers nationwide.

Improving the quality of health care will also lower the cost of care. By investing in the delivery of quality health care, we will be able to lower long term health care costs. Effective care, such as quality preventive services, can reduce overall health care expenditures. Health purchasing coalitions help promote these services and act as an employer forum for networking and education on health care cost containment strategies. They can help foster a dialogue with health care providers, insurers, and local HMOs.

Health care markets are local. Problems with cost, quality, and access to health care are felt most intensely in the local markets. Health care coalitions can function best when they are formed and implemented locally. Local employers of large and small businesses have formed health care coalitions to track health care trends, create a demand for quality and safety, and encourage group purchasing.

In Wisconsin, there have been various successful initiatives that have formed health care purchasing cooperatives to improve quality of care and to reduce cost. For example, the Employer Health Care Alliance Cooperative, an employer-owned and employer-directed not-for-profit cooperative, has developed a network of health care providers in Dane County and 12 surrounding counties on behalf of its 157 member employers. Through this pooling effort, employers are able to obtain affordable, high-quality health care for their nearly 73,000 employees and dependents.

This legislation seeks to build on successful local initiatives, such as the Alliance, that help businesses to join together to increase access to affordable and high-quality health care.

The Promoting Health Care Purchasing Cooperatives Act would authorize grants to a group of businesses so that they could form group- purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, reduce health care rates, and improve quality.

This legislation offers two separate grant programs to help different types of businesses pool their resources and bargaining power. Both programs would aid businesses to form cooperatives. The first program would help large businesses that sponsor their own health plans, while the second program would help small businesses that purchase their health insurance.

My bill would enable larger businesses to form cost-effective cooperatives that could offer quality health care through several ways. First, they could obtain health services through pooled purchasing from physicians, hospitals, home health agencies, and others. By pooling their experience and interests, employers involved in a coalition could better address essential issues, such as rising health insurance rates and the lack of comparable health care quality data. They would be able to share information regarding the quality of these services and to partner with these health care providers to meet the needs of their employees.

For smaller businesses that purchase their health insurance, the formation of cooperatives would allow them to buy health insurance at lower prices through pooled purchasing. Also, the communication within these cooperatives would provide employees of small businesses with better information about the health care options that are available to them. Finally, coalitions would serve to promote quality improvements by facilitating partnerships between their group and the health care providers.

By working together, the group could develop better quality insurance plans and negotiate better rates.

This legislation also tries to alleviate the burden that our Nation's farmers face when trying to purchase health care for themselves, their families, and their employees. Because the health insurance industry looks upon farming as a high-risk profession, many farmers are priced out of, or simply not offered, health insurance. By helping farmers join cooperatives to purchase health insurance, we will help increase their health insurance options.

Past health purchasing pool initiatives have focused only on cost and have tried to be all things for all people. My legislation creates an incentive to join the pools by giving grants to a group of similar businesses to form group-purchasing cooperatives. The pools are also given flexibility to find innovative ways to lower costs, such as enhancing benefits, for example, more preventive care, and improving quality. Finally, the cooperative structure is a proven model, which creates an incentive for businesses to remain in the pool because they will be invested in the organization.

We must reform health care in America and give employers and employees more options. This legislation, by providing for the formation of cost-effective coalitions that will also improve the quality of care, contributes to this essential reform process. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this proposal to improve the quality and costs of health care.

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

Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator Collins from Maine, I am introducing legislation to help businesses form group-purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, to reduce health care rates, and to improve quality for their employees' health care.

High health care costs are burdening businesses and employees across the Nation. These costs are digging into profits and preventing access to affordable health care. Too many patients feel trapped by the system, with decisions about their health dictated by costs rather than by what they need.

Nationally, the annual average cost to an employer for an individual employee's health care is $3,615. For a family, the employer contribution is $8,508. We must curb these rapidly increasing health care costs. I strongly support initiatives to ensure that everyone has access to health care. It is crucial that we support successful local initiatives to reduce health care premiums and to improve the quality of employees' health care.

By using group purchasing to obtain rate discounts, some employers have been able to reduce the cost of health care premiums for their employees. According to the National Business Coalition on Health, there are nearly 80 employer-led coalitions across the United States that collectively purchase health care. Through these pools, businesses are able to proactively challenge high costs and inefficient delivery of health care and share information on quality. These coalitions represent over 10,000 employers nationwide.

Improving the quality of health care will also lower the cost of care. By investing in the delivery of quality health care, we will be able to lower long term health care costs. Effective care, such as quality preventive services, can reduce overall health care expenditures. Health purchasing coalitions help promote these services and act as an employer forum for networking and education on health care cost containment strategies. They can help foster a dialogue with health care providers, insurers, and local HMOs.

Health care markets are local. Problems with cost, quality, and access to health care are felt most intensely in the local markets. Health care coalitions can function best when they are formed and implemented locally. Local employers of large and small businesses have formed health care coalitions to track health care trends, create a demand for quality and safety, and encourage group purchasing.

In Wisconsin, there have been various successful initiatives that have formed health care purchasing cooperatives to improve quality of care and to reduce cost. For example, the Employer Health Care Alliance Cooperative, an employer-owned and employer-directed not-for-profit cooperative, has developed a network of health care providers in Dane County and 12 surrounding counties on behalf of its 157 member employers. Through this pooling effort, employers are able to obtain affordable, high-quality health care for their nearly 73,000 employees and dependents.

This legislation seeks to build on successful local initiatives, such as the Alliance, that help businesses to join together to increase access to affordable and high-quality health care.

The Promoting Health Care Purchasing Cooperatives Act would authorize grants to a group of businesses so that they could form group- purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, reduce health care rates, and improve quality.

This legislation offers two separate grant programs to help different types of businesses pool their resources and bargaining power. Both programs would aid businesses to form cooperatives. The first program would help large businesses that sponsor their own health plans, while the second program would help small businesses that purchase their health insurance.

My bill would enable larger businesses to form cost-effective cooperatives that could offer quality health care through several ways. First, they could obtain health services through pooled purchasing from physicians, hospitals, home health agencies, and others. By pooling their experience and interests, employers involved in a coalition could better address essential issues, such as rising health insurance rates and the lack of comparable health care quality data. They would be able to share information regarding the quality of these services and to partner with these health care providers to meet the needs of their employees.

For smaller businesses that purchase their health insurance, the formation of cooperatives would allow them to buy health insurance at lower prices through pooled purchasing. Also, the communication within these cooperatives would provide employees of small businesses with better information about the health care options that are available to them. Finally, coalitions would serve to promote quality improvements by facilitating partnerships between their group and the health care providers.

By working together, the group could develop better quality insurance plans and negotiate better rates.

This legislation also tries to alleviate the burden that our Nation's farmers face when trying to purchase health care for themselves, their families, and their employees. Because the health insurance industry looks upon farming as a high-risk profession, many farmers are priced out of, or simply not offered, health insurance. By helping farmers join cooperatives to purchase health insurance, we will help increase their health insurance options.

Past health purchasing pool initiatives have focused only on cost and have tried to be all things for all people. My legislation creates an incentive to join the pools by giving grants to a group of similar businesses to form group-purchasing cooperatives. The pools are also given flexibility to find innovative ways to lower costs, such as enhancing benefits, for example, more preventive care, and improving quality. Finally, the cooperative structure is a proven model, which creates an incentive for businesses to remain in the pool because they will be invested in the organization.

We must reform health care in America and give employers and employees more options. This legislation, by providing for the formation of cost-effective coalitions that will also improve the quality of care, contributes to this essential reform process. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this proposal to improve the quality and costs of health care.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, in introducing the reauthorization of the Automated Defibrillators in Adam's Memory Act, or the ADAM Act. This bill is modeled after the successful Project ADAM that originally began in Wisconsin, and will reauthorize a program to establish a national clearing house to provide schools with the ``how-to'' and technical advice to set up a public access defibrillation program.

Sudden cardiac death from coronary heart disease occurs over 900 times per

day in the United States. By improving access to automated external defibrillators, or AEDs, we can improve the survival rates of cardiac arrest in our communities.

In my home State of Wisconsin, as in many other States, heart disease is the number one killer. In 2004, 35.4 percent of all deaths in Wisconsin were caused by heart disease and stroke. Overall, heart disease kills more Americans than AIDS, cancer and accidents combined.

Cardiac arrest can strike anyone. Cardiac victims are in a race against time, and unfortunately, for too many of those in rural areas, Emergency Medical Services are unable to reach people in need, and time runs out. It's simply not possible to have EMS units next to every farm and small town across the Nation.

Fortunately, recent technological advances have made the newest generation of AEDs inexpensive and simple to operate. Because of these advancements in AED technology, it is now practical to train and equip police officers, teachers, and members of other community organizations.

An estimated 164,600 Americans experience out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrests each year. Immediate CPR and early defibrillation using an AED can more than double a victim's chance of survival. By taking some relatively simple steps, we can give victims of cardiac arrest a better chance of survival.

Over the past 6 years, I have worked with Senator Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, on a number of initiatives to empower communities to improve cardiac arrest survival rates. We have pushed Congress to support rural first responders--local police and fire and rescue services--in their efforts to provide early defibrillation. Congress heard our call, and responded by enacting two of our bills, the Rural Access to Emergency Devices Act and the ADAM Act.

The Rural Access to Emergency Devices program allows community partnerships across the country to receive a grant enabling them to purchase defibrillators, and receive the training needed to use these devices. I'm pleased to say that grants have already put defibrillators in rural communities in 49 States, helping those communities be better prepared when cardiac arrest strikes.

Approximately 95 percent of sudden cardiac arrest victims die before reaching the hospital. Every minute that passes before a cardiac arrest victim is defibrillated, the chance of survival falls by as much as 10 percent. After only 8 minutes, the victim's survival rate drops by 60 percent. This is why early intervention is essential--a combination of CPR and use of AEDs can save lives.

Heart disease is not only a problem among adults. A few years ago I learned the story of Adam Lemel, a 17-year-old high school student and a star basketball and tennis player in Wisconsin. Tragically, during a timeout while playing basketball at a neighboring Milwaukee high school, Adam suffered sudden cardiac arrest, and died before the paramedics arrived.

This story is incredibly sad. Adam had his whole life ahead of him, and could quite possibly have been saved with appropriate early intervention. In fact, we have seen a number of examples in Wisconsin where early CPR and access to defibrillation have saved lives.

Seventy miles away from Milwaukee, a 14-year-old boy collapsed while playing basketball. Within 3 minutes, the emergency team arrived and began CPR. Within 5 minutes of his collapse, the paramedics used an AED to jump start his heart. Not only has this young man survived, doctors have identified his father and brother as having the same heart condition and have begun preventative treatments.

These stories help to underscore some important issues. First, although cardiac arrest is most common among adults, it can occur at any age--even in apparently healthy children and adolescents. Second, early intervention is essential--a combination of CPR and the use of AEDs can save lives. Third, some individuals who are at risk for sudden cardiac arrest can be identified to prevent cardiac arrest.

After Adam Lemel suffered his cardiac arrest, his friend David Ellis joined forces with Children's Hospital of Wisconsin to initiate Project ADAM to bring CPR training and public access defibrillation into schools, educate communities about preventing sudden cardiac deaths and save lives.

Today, Project ADAM has introduced AEDs into several Wisconsin schools, and has been a model for programs in Washington, Florida, Michigan and elsewhere. Project ADAM provides a model for the Nation, and now, with the enactment of this new law, more schools will have access to the information they seek to launch similar programs.

The ADAM Act was passed into law in 2003, but has yet to be funded. Should funding be enacted, the program will help to put life-saving defibrillators in the hands of people in schools around the country. I have been very proud to play a part in having this bill signed into law, and it is my hope that the reauthorization of the Act will quickly pass through the Congress and into law, and that funding will follow. It would not take much money to fund this program and save lives across the country.

The ADAM Act is one way we can honor the life of children like Adam Lemel, and give tomorrow's pediatric cardiac arrest victims a fighting chance at life.

This act exists because a family that experienced the tragic loss of their son was determined to spare other families that same loss. I thank Adam's parents, Joe and Patty, for their courageous efforts and I thank them for everything they have done to help the ADAM Act become law. Their actions take incredible bravery, and I commend them for their efforts.

By making sure that AEDs are available in our Nation's rural areas, schools and throughout our communities we can help those in a race against time have a fighting chance of survival when they fall victim to cardiac arrest. I urge Congress to pass this reauthorization, and to fund this Act. We have the power to prevent death--all we must do is act.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, in introducing the reauthorization of the Automated Defibrillators in Adam's Memory Act, or the ADAM Act. This bill is modeled after the successful Project ADAM that originally began in Wisconsin, and will reauthorize a program to establish a national clearing house to provide schools with the ``how-to'' and technical advice to set up a public access defibrillation program.

Sudden cardiac death from coronary heart disease occurs over 900 times per

day in the United States. By improving access to automated external defibrillators, or AEDs, we can improve the survival rates of cardiac arrest in our communities.

In my home State of Wisconsin, as in many other States, heart disease is the number one killer. In 2004, 35.4 percent of all deaths in Wisconsin were caused by heart disease and stroke. Overall, heart disease kills more Americans than AIDS, cancer and accidents combined.

Cardiac arrest can strike anyone. Cardiac victims are in a race against time, and unfortunately, for too many of those in rural areas, Emergency Medical Services are unable to reach people in need, and time runs out. It's simply not possible to have EMS units next to every farm and small town across the Nation.

Fortunately, recent technological advances have made the newest generation of AEDs inexpensive and simple to operate. Because of these advancements in AED technology, it is now practical to train and equip police officers, teachers, and members of other community organizations.

An estimated 164,600 Americans experience out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrests each year. Immediate CPR and early defibrillation using an AED can more than double a victim's chance of survival. By taking some relatively simple steps, we can give victims of cardiac arrest a better chance of survival.

Over the past 6 years, I have worked with Senator Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, on a number of initiatives to empower communities to improve cardiac arrest survival rates. We have pushed Congress to support rural first responders--local police and fire and rescue services--in their efforts to provide early defibrillation. Congress heard our call, and responded by enacting two of our bills, the Rural Access to Emergency Devices Act and the ADAM Act.

The Rural Access to Emergency Devices program allows community partnerships across the country to receive a grant enabling them to purchase defibrillators, and receive the training needed to use these devices. I'm pleased to say that grants have already put defibrillators in rural communities in 49 States, helping those communities be better prepared when cardiac arrest strikes.

Approximately 95 percent of sudden cardiac arrest victims die before reaching the hospital. Every minute that passes before a cardiac arrest victim is defibrillated, the chance of survival falls by as much as 10 percent. After only 8 minutes, the victim's survival rate drops by 60 percent. This is why early intervention is essential--a combination of CPR and use of AEDs can save lives.

Heart disease is not only a problem among adults. A few years ago I learned the story of Adam Lemel, a 17-year-old high school student and a star basketball and tennis player in Wisconsin. Tragically, during a timeout while playing basketball at a neighboring Milwaukee high school, Adam suffered sudden cardiac arrest, and died before the paramedics arrived.

This story is incredibly sad. Adam had his whole life ahead of him, and could quite possibly have been saved with appropriate early intervention. In fact, we have seen a number of examples in Wisconsin where early CPR and access to defibrillation have saved lives.

Seventy miles away from Milwaukee, a 14-year-old boy collapsed while playing basketball. Within 3 minutes, the emergency team arrived and began CPR. Within 5 minutes of his collapse, the paramedics used an AED to jump start his heart. Not only has this young man survived, doctors have identified his father and brother as having the same heart condition and have begun preventative treatments.

These stories help to underscore some important issues. First, although cardiac arrest is most common among adults, it can occur at any age--even in apparently healthy children and adolescents. Second, early intervention is essential--a combination of CPR and the use of AEDs can save lives. Third, some individuals who are at risk for sudden cardiac arrest can be identified to prevent cardiac arrest.

After Adam Lemel suffered his cardiac arrest, his friend David Ellis joined forces with Children's Hospital of Wisconsin to initiate Project ADAM to bring CPR training and public access defibrillation into schools, educate communities about preventing sudden cardiac deaths and save lives.

Today, Project ADAM has introduced AEDs into several Wisconsin schools, and has been a model for programs in Washington, Florida, Michigan and elsewhere. Project ADAM provides a model for the Nation, and now, with the enactment of this new law, more schools will have access to the information they seek to launch similar programs.

The ADAM Act was passed into law in 2003, but has yet to be funded. Should funding be enacted, the program will help to put life-saving defibrillators in the hands of people in schools around the country. I have been very proud to play a part in having this bill signed into law, and it is my hope that the reauthorization of the Act will quickly pass through the Congress and into law, and that funding will follow. It would not take much money to fund this program and save lives across the country.

The ADAM Act is one way we can honor the life of children like Adam Lemel, and give tomorrow's pediatric cardiac arrest victims a fighting chance at life.

This act exists because a family that experienced the tragic loss of their son was determined to spare other families that same loss. I thank Adam's parents, Joe and Patty, for their courageous efforts and I thank them for everything they have done to help the ADAM Act become law. Their actions take incredible bravery, and I commend them for their efforts.

By making sure that AEDs are available in our Nation's rural areas, schools and throughout our communities we can help those in a race against time have a fighting chance of survival when they fall victim to cardiac arrest. I urge Congress to pass this reauthorization, and to fund this Act. We have the power to prevent death--all we must do is act.

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