Floor Statements

Mr. President, today and throughout Hispanic Heritage Month, we honor the proud history of our Nation's Hispanic community, and we pay tribute to the extraordinary contributions that people of Hispanic heritage have made and continue to make to the United States.

In 1968, Congress authorized President Lyndon Johnson to proclaim a week in September as National Hispanic Heritage Week. The observance was expanded in 1988 to a month-long celebration. During this month, America celebrates the culture and traditions of Spain, Mexico and the Spanish-speaking nations of Central America, South America and the Caribbean. The celebration begins on September 15 because that is the anniversary of independence of five Latin American countries--Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. In addition, Mexico and Chile celebrate their independence days on September 16 and September 18, respectively.

National Hispanic Heritage Month celebrates people whose roots extend back to more than 20 different nations around the world and who are an integral part of America's communities. Currently, there are more than 43 million Hispanic Americans, the fastest growing ethnic group in the United States. Hispanic Americans are the

most decorated ethnic group in the history of our military, and we are deeply grateful for their contributions to our Nation's defense.

Hispanic Americans have made invaluable contributions to every part of American society, from the arts, to medicine to politics to our economy. We are a richer nation in every sense because of those contributions, and because of what they represent--a country that draws strength from its great diversity.

But as we celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month, it is also time to address the challenges that face the Hispanic community, such as lack of access to education and health care, inadequate working conditions, racial profiling and, for many, the difficulty of keeping their families together while working to become legal, permanent residents of this great country.

This celebration should serve as a call to action for Congress. We must ensure that Hispanic Americans have access to educational and economic opportunities as they pursue the American dream. I have long fought attempts to cut funding for important programs such as Pell grants, the High School Equivalency Program, and College Assistance Migrant Program. I have cosponsored the DREAM Act--the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act--which would provide higher education opportunities for children who are long-term U.S. residents of good moral character, and who came to this country illegally as children through no fault of their own.

Another crucial piece of legislation is AgJOBS--the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act. This proposal would enable undocumented agricultural workers to legalize their status, and would reform the H2-A agricultural worker visa program so that growers and workers will not continue to rely on illegal paths to employment in the future.

Congress must also continue working toward establishing a realistic immigration system that has adequate opportunities for people to come to the United States legally. In Wisconsin, businessowners have come to rely on foreign workers for their economic success. Simply imposing new border security measures alone, which some have advocated, is not enough.

In closing, I want to express my hope that Congress will work to address these issues and other urgent matters for Hispanic Americans across the country. We should not limit our celebration of Hispanic Heritage to one month but rather work all year long to ensure that all Hispanic Americans can equally participate in, and contribute to, the progress of our great Nation.

Mr. President, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was supposed to hold its third hearing on Darfur in as many years this week, but it was postponed because the administration couldn't field the appropriate witnesses. In a region where each day means hundreds of innocent lives lost and thousands more terrorized and displaced, time is not on our side.

I want to begin my statement today by acknowledging that there have been some positive developments over the past month relating to the international community's response to the violence in Darfur. I welcomed the passage of United Nations Resolution 1706, a U.S.-backed initiative authorizing a 22,000-strong U.N. peacekeeping force for Darfur. The President's appointment of Andrew Natsios as his Special Envoy to Sudan was long overdue. And, while it isn't perfect, the recently passed bipartisan Darfur Peace and Accountability Act is a first step that reaffirms the United States' determination to lead the way on the long path ahead to achieving a sustainable peace in Sudan.

Unfortunately, none of these developments have changed conditions on the ground. Nor have the strong words that our Government or the international community used to condemn the perpetrators of violence in Darfur over the past few years. In December 2003, the administration issued a statement expressing ``deep concern'' about the humanitarian and security situation in Darfur and calling ``on the Government of Sudan to take concrete steps to control the militia groups it has armed, to avoid attacks against civilians and to fully facilitate the efforts of the international humanitarian community to respond to civilian needs.''

Had Secretary Rice or Ambassador Bolton found the time to speak with us this week, they no doubt would have reiterated the administration's boast that the United States has been the largest single contributor of humanitarian aid to Darfur and the most generous supporter of the existing African Union force. Similarly, some of my colleagues in the Senate are quick to point out that we were the first to condemn the atrocities in Darfur as genocide in July 2004 and have appropriated more than $1.5 billion to ease the suffering of innocent Darfurians since then.

I do not wish to imply that these statements and funds are unimportant. But they are not enough.

For those of us with a long history of engagement in Africa, today's crisis in Darfur is eerily familiar. After all, this is the same regime we saw attack its own citizens in indiscriminate bombing raids and obstruct humanitarian access during two decades of bloody civil war with southern Sudan. The genocide underway in Darfur should not be considered in isolation but in the larger context of Sudan's tumultuous history. We cannot afford to forget that more than 2 million Sudanese were killed and 4.5 million displaced in the north-south civil war that ended with last year's Comprehensive Peace Agreement. That fragile peace, as well as May's Darfur Peace Agreement, now hang in the balance as the Sudanese Government renews its practice of organized atrocities as a method of governance.

More than 2 years after our Government called the violence in Darfur a ``genocide,'' the United States must lead the international community in taking action to stop the ongoing violence and to mitigate further violence.

First, the United States must throw its entire weight behind concerted diplomatic action to convince Khartoum to allow a U.N. peacekeeping force into Darfur. This means that the full array of economic and political incentives at our disposal should be devoted to pressuring those who persist in supporting Khartoum--namely, China, Russia, and the Arab League--to isolate the genocidal regime until it stops targeting civilians and cooperates with U.N. peacekeepers. These countries must not allow their complacency to become complicity in the crimes against humanity being perpetrated in Darfur.

Second, it means bolstering the courageous but inadequate African Union peacekeeping force that has been doing its best to protect the people of Darfur for more than 2 years. At this point, the A.U. force is our only vehicle for establishing stability throughout the region. Unfortunately, in its current form, it is incapable of doing so without significant assistance from the international community. The United States must lead a renewed international effort to provide whatever financial, logistical, technical, and military resources are necessary for the deployment of the robust United Nations peacekeeping force as soon as possible.

Third, the U.S. Government must engage fully in the work required to find a political solution to conflict in Darfur. This means establishing a peace process that will expand the Darfur Peace Agreement to incorporate all militias and political factions in Darfur, along with the Government in Khartoum. While I do not doubt the good intentions of former Deputy Secretary Zoellick, his efforts to create a peace agreement were hasty and incomplete. We will need sustained, detailed, and aggressive engagement with all of the parties to the conflict before we can expect lasting results. While I would like to think that building on the Darfur Peace Agreement might work, it may not. We need to be prepared to start from scratch and build an agreement in which all parties can find common ground.

We also need to begin preparing to introduce additional, more forceful options to stop the genocide. We must signal to Khartoum that the international community will not tolerate continued violence and that it is prepared to use forceful measures to stop it. A NATO- enforced no-fly zone over Darfur would halt the Sudanese Government's indiscriminate bombing campaign and escorts for humanitarian envoys would ensure that aid reaches those who desperately need it. We need to explore this option and identify other avenues to create humanitarian space throughout the region.

The President's new special envoy must get to work immediately. He must work to bring an unprecedented diplomatic force on Khartoum, and he must begin preparing other, more aggressive options should conditions continue to worsen.

Finally, we must signal clearly to those who commit crimes against humanity that the world is watching and that they will be held accountable for their actions via targeted and aggressive sanctions-- including financial and travel restrictions--and criminal prosecution. This climate of impunity must be eliminated so that organized atrocities do not become a widespread governance tool.

I would like to close by saying that we should not lose sight of the broader, long-term objective of sustainable peace throughout Sudan. We must devise a comprehensive strategy for expanding the Darfur Peace Agreement to include those parties that have not yet signed and for instituting and strengthening mechanisms to prevent parties from backsliding into full-scale conflict.

Our experience with the Sudanese Government over the past two decades has shown that words mean little. Without immediate and vigorous action, these are only more empty promises to the people of Darfur. Time is

not on our side; we cannot afford to delay any longer or defer to the obstructionist tactics of brutal regimes. The people of Sudan deserve more than our outrage; they deserve our action. And the time to act is now.

Mr. President, today I introduce a bill that seeks to make life a little easier for our servicemembers and their families when they are called up to duty or transferred. We all recognize the heroic service the men and women in our armed services provide the Nation each day. So when I heard stories about servicemembers and their families in Wisconsin having trouble canceling their cell phone contracts after being called up, I looked for a way to help. With the prospect of a combat assignment, the last thing our men and women in uniform should have to worry about are early termination fees or being forced to pay for a service they cannot use. I tried to have this provision adopted as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill in June and, while I was unsuccessful, I will continue to push for the adoption of this commonsense measure.

These problems with canceling cellular phone service have not been just isolated incidents. In fact, the issue has been raised by the Wisconsin National Guard. I ask unanimous consent that the full testimony of First Lieutenant Melissa Inlow of the Wisconsin Army National Guard made at a hearing on a Wisconsin State assembly bill in April be printed in the Record.

I just want to highlight one part of that testimony that makes the point that this is a real issue facing our servicemembers: ``It's becoming increasingly difficult to get cell phone service providers to suspend the contract. Even with suspension the soldiers are still paying up to $25 a month for a service they cannot reap the benefits of. These fees can accumulate to more than the termination fee which on average is $200.'' First Lieutenant Inlow went on to specifically recommend that the Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act be amended to include a section on cellular phones.

First Lieutenant Inlow and the Wisconsin National Guard are not alone in this opinion either. The National Guard Association of the United States, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, and the Military Officers Association of America have all expressed support for my amendment--which is virtually identical to the legislation I introduce today.

It is common now for cellular phone contracts to require a contract term of up to two years. Along with these long contracts, there are often early termination fees of several hundred dollars. When a National Guard member is called up to active duty or a soldier is transferred overseas or to a base that isn't covered by their current provider, they often face the prospect of either paying these significant fees or paying monthly fees for the remainder of the contract for a service they cannot use. While many servicemembers and their families have been able to work with telecommunications companies to eventually get the early termination fee canceled, the account suspended, or the fees reduced, they have enough to deal with after being called up that they should not have this added burden as well.

My legislation proposes that we bring these cellular phone contracts in line with what we have already done for residential and automotive leases in the Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act--let the servicemembers cancel the contract. Under my proposal, if servicemembers are called up for more than 90 days, transferred overseas, or transferred to a U.S. duty station where they could not continue their service at the same rate, they could cancel their contract without a termination fee.

While my legislation helps to prevent servicemembers from being financially punished for volunteering to protect this country, I have also tried to make sure that the telecommunications providers are treated fairly as well. That is why I have included a provision that would allow the providers to request the return of cell phones provided as part of the contract. If the company requests the return under this provision, it would also have to give the servicemember the option of paying a pro-rated amount for the cell phone should he or she wish to keep it. Moreover, if the provider and servicemember mutually agree to suspend instead of terminate the contract, the bill makes sure that the reactivation fee is waived.

While this is a modest addition to the rights of servicemembers, it is important that we remove as many unfair burdens facing this country's men and women in uniform as we can. I hope my colleagues will share this view and quickly adopt this nonpartisan proposal.

Testimony for the Record of First Lieutenant Melissa Inlow at a Hearing

on Wisconsin Assembly Bill 1174 on April 17, 2006

Thank you, chairman and members of the committee, for the

opportunity to speak. The Department of Military Affairs and

the Wisconsin National Guard is in support of senate bill

1174. I am First Lieutenant Melissa Inlow, a Judge Advocate

General Officer with the Wisconsin Army National Guard. By

granting servicemembers the right to terminate their cell

phone contracts upon mobilization, you are ensuring further

protections and peace of mind for our servicemembers. In

August of 2005, I was brought on to provide legal assistance

to our deployed servicemembers and their families. Since that

time, about 3-5 percent of my time has been dedicated to

assisting servicemembers in resolving issues with their cell

phone service contracts. It's becoming increasingly difficult

to get cell phone service providers to suspend the contract.

Even with suspension the soldiers are still paying up to $25

a month for service they cannot reap the benefits of. These

fees can accumulate to more than the termination fee which on

average is $200. I've found it very difficult and sometimes

impossible to reach a live person and very difficult to reach

a person with decision making authority. Each time I have had

to call a cellular phone service provider, I have talked to

a different customer service representative, and each has

given me a different resolution to the cell phone issue. The

companies are lacking significantly in internal consistency

when it comes to resolving cell phone contract issues. It has

been my experience that the customer service representatives

of cell phone companies experience high turn over rate and

are not aware of the wireless provider's policy on military

suspension. It is extremely frustrating for me; I can only

imagine the undue stress and strain it causes our deploying

servicemembers and their families that are left behind to

deal with these issues. This change will likely help ease the

stress deployment phaces on our servicemembers allowing them

to focus on their mission. I hope that the Federal Government

will follow suit and amend the Servicemember's Civil Relief

Act to incorporate a section on cell phone contracts.

Mr. President, today I introduce a bill that seeks to make life a little easier for our servicemembers and their families when they are called up to duty or transferred. We all recognize the heroic service the men and women in our armed services provide the Nation each day. So when I heard stories about servicemembers and their families in Wisconsin having trouble canceling their cell phone contracts after being called up, I looked for a way to help. With the prospect of a combat assignment, the last thing our men and women in uniform should have to worry about are early termination fees or being forced to pay for a service they cannot use. I tried to have this provision adopted as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill in June and, while I was unsuccessful, I will continue to push for the adoption of this commonsense measure.

These problems with canceling cellular phone service have not been just isolated incidents. In fact, the issue has been raised by the Wisconsin National Guard. I ask unanimous consent that the full testimony of First Lieutenant Melissa Inlow of the Wisconsin Army National Guard made at a hearing on a Wisconsin State assembly bill in April be printed in the Record.

I just want to highlight one part of that testimony that makes the point that this is a real issue facing our servicemembers: ``It's becoming increasingly difficult to get cell phone service providers to suspend the contract. Even with suspension the soldiers are still paying up to $25 a month for a service they cannot reap the benefits of. These fees can accumulate to more than the termination fee which on average is $200.'' First Lieutenant Inlow went on to specifically recommend that the Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act be amended to include a section on cellular phones.

First Lieutenant Inlow and the Wisconsin National Guard are not alone in this opinion either. The National Guard Association of the United States, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, and the Military Officers Association of America have all expressed support for my amendment--which is virtually identical to the legislation I introduce today.

It is common now for cellular phone contracts to require a contract term of up to two years. Along with these long contracts, there are often early termination fees of several hundred dollars. When a National Guard member is called up to active duty or a soldier is transferred overseas or to a base that isn't covered by their current provider, they often face the prospect of either paying these significant fees or paying monthly fees for the remainder of the contract for a service they cannot use. While many servicemembers and their families have been able to work with telecommunications companies to eventually get the early termination fee canceled, the account suspended, or the fees reduced, they have enough to deal with after being called up that they should not have this added burden as well.

My legislation proposes that we bring these cellular phone contracts in line with what we have already done for residential and automotive leases in the Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act--let the servicemembers cancel the contract. Under my proposal, if servicemembers are called up for more than 90 days, transferred overseas, or transferred to a U.S. duty station where they could not continue their service at the same rate, they could cancel their contract without a termination fee.

While my legislation helps to prevent servicemembers from being financially punished for volunteering to protect this country, I have also tried to make sure that the telecommunications providers are treated fairly as well. That is why I have included a provision that would allow the providers to request the return of cell phones provided as part of the contract. If the company requests the return under this provision, it would also have to give the servicemember the option of paying a pro-rated amount for the cell phone should he or she wish to keep it. Moreover, if the provider and servicemember mutually agree to suspend instead of terminate the contract, the bill makes sure that the reactivation fee is waived.

While this is a modest addition to the rights of servicemembers, it is important that we remove as many unfair burdens facing this country's men and women in uniform as we can. I hope my colleagues will share this view and quickly adopt this nonpartisan proposal.

Testimony for the Record of First Lieutenant Melissa Inlow at a Hearing

on Wisconsin Assembly Bill 1174 on April 17, 2006

Thank you, chairman and members of the committee, for the

opportunity to speak. The Department of Military Affairs and

the Wisconsin National Guard is in support of senate bill

1174. I am First Lieutenant Melissa Inlow, a Judge Advocate

General Officer with the Wisconsin Army National Guard. By

granting servicemembers the right to terminate their cell

phone contracts upon mobilization, you are ensuring further

protections and peace of mind for our servicemembers. In

August of 2005, I was brought on to provide legal assistance

to our deployed servicemembers and their families. Since that

time, about 3-5 percent of my time has been dedicated to

assisting servicemembers in resolving issues with their cell

phone service contracts. It's becoming increasingly difficult

to get cell phone service providers to suspend the contract.

Even with suspension the soldiers are still paying up to $25

a month for service they cannot reap the benefits of. These

fees can accumulate to more than the termination fee which on

average is $200. I've found it very difficult and sometimes

impossible to reach a live person and very difficult to reach

a person with decision making authority. Each time I have had

to call a cellular phone service provider, I have talked to

a different customer service representative, and each has

given me a different resolution to the cell phone issue. The

companies are lacking significantly in internal consistency

when it comes to resolving cell phone contract issues. It has

been my experience that the customer service representatives

of cell phone companies experience high turn over rate and

are not aware of the wireless provider's policy on military

suspension. It is extremely frustrating for me; I can only

imagine the undue stress and strain it causes our deploying

servicemembers and their families that are left behind to

deal with these issues. This change will likely help ease the

stress deployment phaces on our servicemembers allowing them

to focus on their mission. I hope that the Federal Government

will follow suit and amend the Servicemember's Civil Relief

Act to incorporate a section on cell phone contracts.

Madam President, I understand I have 6 minutes on the bill in general.

Madam President, I oppose the Military Commissions Act.

Let me be clear: I welcomed efforts to bring terrorists to justice. Actually, it is about time. This administration has too long been distracted by the war in Iraq from the fight against al-Qaida. We need a renewed focus on the terrorist networks that present the greatest threat to this country.

We would not be where we are today, 5 years after September 11, with not a single Guantanamo Bay detainee having been brought to trial, if the President had come to Congress in the first place, rather than unilaterally creating military commissions that did not comply with the law. The Hamdan decision was a historic rebuke to an administration that has acted for years as if it is above the law.

I have hoped that we would take this opportunity to pass legislation that allows us to proceed in accordance with our laws and our values. That is what separates America from our enemies. These trials, conducted appropriately, have the potential to demonstrate to

the world that our democratic constitutional system of government is our greatest strength in fighting those who attack us.

That is why I am saddened I must oppose this legislation because the trials conducted under this legislation may send a very different signal to the world, one that I fear will put our troops and personnel in jeopardy both now and in future conflicts. To take just a few examples, this legislation would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and hearsay, would not allow full judicial review of the conviction, and yet would allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death. That is just simply unacceptable.

Not only that, this legislation would deny detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere--people who have been held for years but have not been tried or even charged with any crime--the ability to challenge their detention in court. The legislation before us is better than that originally proposed by the President, which would have largely codified the procedures the Supreme Court has already rejected. And that is thanks to the efforts of some of my Republican colleagues, for whom I have great respect and admiration. But this bill remains deeply flawed, and I cannot support it.

One of the most disturbing provisions of this bill eliminates the right of habeas corpus for those detained as enemy combatants. I support an amendment by Senator Specter to strike that provision from the bill.

Habeas corpus is a fundamental recognition that in America the Government does not have the power to detain people indefinitely and arbitrarily. And in America, the courts must have the power to review the legality of executive detention decisions.

This bill would fundamentally alter that historical equation. Faced with an executive branch that has detained hundreds of people without trial for years now, it would eliminate the right of habeas corpus.

Under this legislation, some individuals, at the designation of the executive branch alone, could be picked up, even in the United States, and held indefinitely without trial and without any access whatsoever to the courts. They would not be able to call upon the laws of our great Nation to challenge their detention because they would have been put outside the reach of the law.

Some have suggested that terrorists who take up arms against this country should not be allowed to challenge their detention in court. But that argument is circular. The writ of habeas allows those who might be mistakenly detained to challenge their detention in court before a neutral decisionmaker. The alternative is to allow people to be detained indefinitely with no ability to argue that they are not, in fact--that they are not, in fact--enemy combatants.

There is another reason we must not deprive detainees of habeas corpus, and that is the fact that the American system of government is supposed to set an example for the world as a beacon of democracy.

A group of retired diplomats sent a very moving letter to explain their concerns about this habeas-stripping provision. Here is what they said:

To proclaim democratic government to the rest of the world

as the supreme form of government at the very moment we

eliminate the most important avenue of relief from arbitrary

governmental detention will not serve our interests in the

larger world.

Many dedicated patriotic Americans share these grave reservations about this particular provision of this bill. Unfortunately, the suspension of the Great Writ is not the only problem with this legislation. Unfortunately, I do not have time to discuss them all.

But the bill also appears to permit individuals to be convicted, and even sentenced to death, on the basis of coerced testimony. According to the legislation, statements obtained through cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, as long as it was obtained prior to December 2005, when the McCain amendment became law, would apparently be admissible in many instances in these military commissions.

Now, it is true that the bill would require the commission to find these statements have sufficient and probative value. But why would we go down this road of trying to convict people based on statements obtained through cruel, inhuman, or degrading interrogation techniques? Either we are a nation that stands against this type of cruelty and for the rule of law or we are not. We cannot have it both ways.

In closing, let me do something I do not do very often, and that is quote my former colleague, John Ashcroft. According to the New York Times, in a private meeting of high-level officials in 2003 about the military commission structure, then-Attorney General Ashcroft reportedly said:

Timothy McVeigh was one of the worst killers in U.S.

history. But at least we had fair procedures for him.

How sad that this Congress would seek to pass legislation about which the same cannot be said.

Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Specter's amendment to strike the habeas provision from this bill.

At its most fundamental, the writ of habeas corpus protects against abuse of government power. It ensures that individuals detained by the government without trial have a method to challenge their detention. Habeas corpus is a fundamental recognition that in America, the government does not have the power to detain people indefinitely and arbitrarily. And that in America, the courts must have the power to review the legality of executive detention decisions.

It goes without saying that this is not a new concept. Habeas corpus is a longstanding vital part of our American tradition, and is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, article 1, section 9, where it states:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be

suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the

public Safety may require it.

The Founders recognized the importance of this right. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 84 explained the importance of habeas corpus, and its centrality to the American system of government and the concept of personal liberty. He quoted William Blackstone, who warned against the ``dangerous engine of arbitrary government'' that could result from unchallengeable confinement, and the ``bulwark'' of habeas corpus against this abuse of government power.

As a group of retired judges wrote to Congress, habeas corpus ``safeguards the most hallowed judicial role in our constitutional democracy--ensuring that no man is imprisoned unlawfully.''

This bill would fundamentally alter that historical equation. Faced with an administration that has detained hundreds of people without trial for years now, it would eliminate the right of habeas corpus for anyone the executive branch labels an alien ``enemy combatant.''

That's right. It would eliminate the right of habeas corpus for any alien detained by the United States, anywhere in the world, and designated by the government as an enemy combatant. And it would do so in the face of years of abuses of power that--thus far--have been reined in primarily through habeas corpus challenges in our Federal courts.

Let me be clear about what it does. Under this legislation, some individuals, at the designation of the executive branch alone, could be picked up, even in the United States, and held indefinitely without trial and without any access whatsoever to the courts. They would not be able to call upon the laws of our great Nation to challenge their detention because they would have been put outside the reach of the law.

That is unacceptable, and it almost surely violates our Constitution. The rule of law is something deeper and more profound than the collection of laws that we have on paper. It is a principle that undergirds our entire society, and that has been central to our nation since its very founding. As Thomas Paine explained at the time of our country's birth in 1776, the rule of law is that principle, that paramount commitment, ``that in America, the law is king. . . . and there ought to be no other.'' The rule of law tells us that no man is above the law--and as an extension of that principle--that no executive will be able to act unchecked by our legal system.

Yet by stripping the habeas corpus rights of any individual who the executive branch decides to designate as an enemy combatant, that is precisely

where we end up--with an executive branch subject to no external check whatsoever. With an executive branch that is king.

Now, it may well be that this provision will be found unconstitutional as an illegal suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. But that determination will take years of protracted litigation. And for what? The President has been urging Congress to pass legislation so that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of 9-11, and other ``high value'' al-Qaida detainees can be tried. This bill is supposed to create a framework for prosecuting unlawful enemy combatants for war crimes that the Supreme Court can accept following the decision this summer in the Hamdan case. There is absolutely no reason why we need to restrict judicial review of the detention of individuals who have not been charged with any crime.

That raises another point. People who are actually subject to trial by military commission will at least be able to argue their innocence before some tribunal, even if I have grave concerns about how those military commissions would proceed under this legislation. But people who have not been charged with any crime will have no guaranteed venue in which to proclaim and prove their innocence. As three retired generals and admirals explained in a letter to Congress:

The effect would be to give greater protections to the

likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed than to the vast majority of

the Guantanamo detainees.

How does this make any sense? Why would we turn our back on hundreds of years of history and our Nation's commitment to liberty?

We have already, in the Detainee Treatment Act, said that no new habeas challenges can be brought by detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The Supreme Court found in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that the Detainee Treatment Act did not apply to Hamdan's pending habeas petition, and went forward with considering his argument that the President's military commission structure was illegal. And I would think that we should all be pleased that it did so, because otherwise we would have had to wait for several more years for Hamdan's trial to be completed before he would have had any chance to challenge the President's military commission system in court. The Supreme Court's decision striking down those commissions would have occurred several years later. And we would be right back where we are now, but with several more years of delay.

There is another reason why we must not deprive detainees of habeas corpus, and that is the fact that the American system of government is supposed to set an example for the world, as a beacon of democracy. And this provision will only serve to harm others' perception of our system of government.

A group of retired diplomats sent a very moving letter explaining their concerns about this habeas-stripping provision. Here is what they said:

To proclaim democratic government to the rest of the world

as the supreme form of government at the very moment we

eliminate the most important avenue of relief from arbitrary

governmental detention will not serve our interests in the

larger world.

They went on to explain further:

The perception of hypocrisy on our part--a sense that we

demand of others a behavioral ethic we ourselves may advocate

but fail to observe--is an acid which can overwhelm our

diplomacy, no matter how well intended and generous.

That is a direct quote.

Let's not go down this road. Let's remove this provision from the bill.

As is already clear, I'm not the only one who has serious concerns about this provision. There is bipartisan support for this amendment. And Congress has received numerous letters objecting to the habeas provision, including from Kenneth Starr; a group of former diplomats; two different groups of law professors; a group of retired judges; and a group of retired generals. Many, many dedicated patriotic Americans have grave reservations about this particular provision of the bill.

They have reservations not because they sympathize with suspected terrorists. Not because they are soft on national security. Not because they don't understand the threat we face. No. They, and we in the Senate who support this amendment, are concerned about this provision because we care about the Constitution, because we care about the image that America presents to the world as we fight the terrorists. Because we know that the writ of habeas corpus provides one of the most significant protections of human freedom against arbitrary government action ever created. If we sacrifice it here, we will head down a road that history will judge harshly and our descendants will regret.

Let me close with something that this group of retired judges said.

For two hundred years, the federal judiciary has maintained

Chief Justice Marshall's solemn admonition that ours is a

government of laws, and not of men. The proposed legislation

imperils this proud history by abandoning the Great Writ. . .

.

Mr. President, we must not imperil our proud history. We must not abandon the Great Writ. We must not jeopardize our Nation's proud traditions and principles by suspending the writ of habeas corpus, and permitting our government to pick people up off the street, even in U.S. cities, and detain them indefinitely without court review. That is not what America is about.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, every Member of this body recognizes that border security is critical to our Nation's security. We can and must improve our efforts at the borders and prevent potential terrorists from entering our country. I have long supported devoting more personnel and resources to border security, and I will continue to do so.

But this bill is a misguided effort to secure our borders. I cannot justify pouring billions of Federal dollars into efforts that are not likely to be effective.

Recent Congressional Budget Office estimates indicate that border fencing can cost more than $3 million per mile. Under this legislation, we would be committing vast resources to an unproven initiative. Adding hundreds of miles of fencing along the border will almost certainly not stem the flow of people who are willing to risk their lives to come to this country.

Furthermore, there are very serious concerns about the environmental impact this type of massive construction project would have on fragile ecosystems in border areas. Before we pour precious Federal dollars into a massive border fencing system, at the very least we should do a thorough analysis of the most effective and fiscally responsible means of securing our borders against illegal transit. In fact, S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, would direct

the Attorney General, in cooperation with other executive branch officials, to conduct such a study on this question. The study would analyze the construction of a system of physical barriers along the southern international land and maritime border, including the necessity, feasibility, and impact of such barriers on the surrounding area.

Another reason that this bill is misguided is that improving our border security alone will not stem the tide of people who are willing to risk everything to enter this country. According to a recent Cato Institute report, the probability of catching an illegal immigrant has fallen over the past two decades from 33 percent to 5 percent, despite the fact that we have tripled the number of border agents and increased the enforcement budget tenfold. It would be fiscally irresponsible and self-defeating to devote more and more Federal dollars to border security efforts, like this fence, without also creating a realistic immigration system to allow people who legitimately want to come to this country to go through legal channels to do so.

That is why I oppose the House ``enforcement only'' bill. That is why business groups, labor unions and immigrant's rights groups have all come together to demand comprehensive immigration reform. And that is why I oppose this bill. We need a comprehensive, pragmatic approach that not only strengthens border security, but also brings people out of the shadows and ensures that our Government knows who is entering this country for legitimate reasons, so we can focus our efforts on finding those who want to do us harm. Border security alone is not enough. I will vote against cloture on this bill.

Mr. President, I remain deeply troubled by the military coup that occurred in Thailand on September 19. The forceful removal of Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was an assault on the democratic institutions of that country and is a dangerous development for a key ally in an increasingly important region. Now, almost 2 weeks after the coup, it is apparent that the coup leaders had only a tentative plan for transitioning back to democratic rule and that their rhetoric about restoring democracy to Thailand may not be as sincere as some had hoped. As the military junta fumbles through its next steps, it is critical that the United States show strong leadership in helping this critical ally reinstitute a civilian democratic government and that it do so immediately.

Mr. President, this coup is particularly troubling because it is a step backward from almost a decade of relatively positive democratic developments. During Thailand's last coup in February 1991, the military overthrew Prime Minister Chatichai Choonhavan and a bloody power transfer followed, culminating in what Thais call ``Black May.'' Those events kicked off a national dialogue that resulted in the establishment of a new constitution in 1997 that restored authority to civilian democratic institutions, ultimately ushering in democratic elections in 2001 and 2005. Thaksin's party, Thai Rak Thai--``Thais love Thai''--won both of those elections in landslide victories.

This recent coup rolls back these developments. There is no doubt that Thailand was suffering from extreme political divisiveness during Thaksin's tenure. When I met with him in Bangkok earlier this year, he was in the throes of a political battle against a growing opposition movement. He was also under fire for mishandling the insurgency in Thailand's three southern-most provinces in which 1,700 people have been killed since January 2004. It was evident that his ability to effectively manage the Thai Government had been diminished.

But this hardly provides justification for a military junta to overthrow a popularly elected government and to discard the nation's constitution. This new military junta, led by General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, and awkwardly self-titled the ``Council for Democratic Reform Under Constitutional Monarchy'', is deeply troubling.

This coup is a significant setback for Thailand's democracy. While the coup occurred in a matter of hours, it may take years before a new civilian and democratic government restores full authority and legitimacy in Bangkok. Unfortunately, this new military council has banned political gatherings and has put some restrictions on the media. It has disseminated a wide range of other decrees and rules, many of which have troubling consequences for freedom of expression and the democratic process. Given these early signs, we have no reason to believe that this council will be any different in nature

than previous military juntas. Additionally, this coup could have negative consequences for Thailand's simmering human rights problems and the insurgency in the south. The coup leaders have already stated that they will focus on quelling a separatist insurgency in southern Thailand. This is worrisome if the military council relies on a strictly military approach to the unrest.

The coup is also bad for the region. Events in Thailand are sending the wrong message to democracies throughout the region that are dealing with legacies of military coups. Secretary Rice has dismissed the notion that this could have a contagion effect throughout the region. While I hope this is true, we should not ignore the fact that a number of countries in Southeast Asia are still dealing with the legacies of military dictatorships. Indonesia is recovering from years of dictatorial military rule, and the Republic of the Philippines is still working to strengthen its democratic institutions and repair its recent history of military intervention. The coup is also, significantly, going to have a direct impact on Thailand's ability to serve as a broker between Burma and the rest of the world.

Finally, it will have an impact on U.S. interests in the region. Thailand is a critical strategic partner of the United States, and some may be tempted to maintain warm relations with the Thai military. Our close political and military relationship goes back decades and is a vital component of U.S. national security policies in the region. But this friendship must take into consideration the dangerous behavior of those who led this coup. We must resist the temptation to give the leaders of this coup a free pass. Instead, we must take strong action.

We need to signal a real sense of urgency to restoring legitimacy to the democratic institutions within Thailand. It is imperative that the Thai military restore the authority of democratic institutions in Thailand expeditiously. President Bush needs to weigh in decisively. The U.S. Government must signal that it will not accept this new interim authority as the status quo and that the Thais must take immediate actions to restore democracy to Thailand. There are four specific things that must occur.

First, the United States must pressure the military council to schedule national elections immediately. General Sonthi has promised elections by October 2007. This is insufficient. Elections should be held at the earliest possible date, understanding the logistical requirements involved in preparing to hold a national election. This is essential and is the only way the military council can prove that it does intend to reintroduce democracy to Thailand.

Second, the administration must immediately put into place sanctions that are required under U.S. law. This means cutting off military assistance now. As we learned in Indonesia, this in itself will send a powerful message to the Thai military that usurping democracy does not pay. The administration would do itself a favor by making the conditions for reinstituting military-to-military relations clear from the outset. Still, this must be a clean break and must be leveraged in the future to help restore democracy.

Third, the United States must work vigorously with other key players in the region to create a united front of disapproval for the coup. The United States can't be alone in its criticisms or in applying pressure on the Thai junta. Secretary Rice's use of the phrase ``U-Turn'' doesn't cut it. We need a strong message that recognizes the grave nature of these developments. ASEAN members, in particular, have a strong role to play. Thailand's neighbors and regional partners must speak out about this coup in strong ways and must use their economic, political, and social leverage to help reinstall democracy in Thailand.

Finally, and until national elections can be carried out, the military council must lift all restrictions on democratic parties, the press, and political leaders. This includes Thaksin supporters. Those who broke the law under the Thaksin Government should be held accountable in the courts of law, not a military junta. Political opposition parties must be allowed to convene, and press freedoms must be established.

Mr. President, I close by reiterating the concern I laid out at the beginning of this statement. The military's end-run of the country's democratic institutions will undermine Thailand's important role throughout the region and the world and will therefore harm our own country's national security interests in the region. Thailand is a critical partner in the region and in the broader fight against terrorist networks. We need a strong, democratic Thailand to serve as our partner. We can't do this if this new military dictatorship derails a democratic government. The United States and international community must urge the Thai military to take the necessary action to restore Thailand's democracy.

Mr. President, I would like to bring attention to a visitor the White House plans to receive this week--the President of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev. My colleagues in this body can be forgiven if they haven't heard much about his visit; there aren't going to be any press conferences or state dinners to welcome him. In fact, the Bush administration has kept very quiet about the invitation it extended to President Nazarbayev, who is expected to arrive later this week. I don't blame them for trying to downplay the visit; President Nazarbayev is widely acknowledged to be a corrupt dictator and someone who has built a record of contempt for the rule of law, the quashing of a nascent democracy, and the destruction of a free press. This is not the kind of leader who should be granted the privilege of an official White House visit.

According to the State Department's most recent Human Rights Report, in 2005 Kazakhstan's ``human rights record remained poor. Legislation enacted during the year seriously eroded legal protections for human rights and expanded the powers of the executive branch to regulate and control civil society . . . [The laws that were passed] encroached on political rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and other human rights.'' The Justice Department and the FBI have accused President Nazarbayev--who has been in control of the country since 1990--of corruption and reportedly considered indicting him on bribery and other charges under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Instead they indicted his personal financial adviser, James Giffen, while identifying President Nazarbayev as the recipient of tens of millions of dollars in payoffs of cash and gifts in an oil lease deal.

President Bush has said that his goal is to spread democracy and the rule of law around the world. But this goal is hard to reconcile with his support for one of the world's most repressive and corrupt dictatorships.

Mr. President, the Washington Post recently published an insightful article on this issue, which I would like to have printed in the Record. I hope my colleagues will have the opportunity to read it and will join me in calling on President Bush to cancel this visit and send the message that there is no room in the White House for those who have such disregard for democracy and the rule of law. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would limit the amount of funds available to the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. We must ensure that U.S. taxpayer money is being used efficiently and effectively, and this measure would help in our ongoing efforts to streamline government programs and reduce the Federal budget deficit.

My bill proposes to reduce the amount of funding for the ARMD from its 2006 level of $884 million to $724 million for fiscal years 2007 and thereafter. This represents a savings of $160 million per year, or $800 million over five years. This funding reduction reflects the President's own budget priorities; in fact, the $724 million figure comes from the President's 2007 budget savings proposal. NASA is in the process of restructuring and reprioritizing, and the ARMD is a directorate that has been identified as an area where savings could be achieved. In the past, some of the ARMD's aeronautics work focused on developing technologies that could have short-term commercial applications in the air transportation industry. This is work that could be more appropriately taken on by the

private sector, and does not require such a massive investment from the Federal Government.

This bill should not be read to imply that the work of the ARMD is not important. To the contrary, aeronautics research is perhaps some of the most directly relevant work to many Americans that NASA is involved in. This bill simply follows up on the President's call for the ARMD to focus its research efforts in the areas that are most appropriate. By refocusing on long-term fundamental aeronautics research, safety research, and ways to address the needs of the future air transportation system, ARMD should be able to operate effectively and efficiently under this spending cap.

One of the main reasons I first ran for the U.S. Senate was to restore fiscal responsibility to the Federal budget. I have continued to work to eliminate wasteful spending and to reduce the soaring budget deficit, which is now estimated at $300 billion this year. Unless we return to fiscally responsible budgeting, Congress will saddle our Nation's younger generations with an enormous financial burden for years to come. This bill is one small step in that direction.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would limit the amount of funds available to the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. We must ensure that U.S. taxpayer money is being used efficiently and effectively, and this measure would help in our ongoing efforts to streamline government programs and reduce the Federal budget deficit.

My bill proposes to reduce the amount of funding for the ARMD from its 2006 level of $884 million to $724 million for fiscal years 2007 and thereafter. This represents a savings of $160 million per year, or $800 million over five years. This funding reduction reflects the President's own budget priorities; in fact, the $724 million figure comes from the President's 2007 budget savings proposal. NASA is in the process of restructuring and reprioritizing, and the ARMD is a directorate that has been identified as an area where savings could be achieved. In the past, some of the ARMD's aeronautics work focused on developing technologies that could have short-term commercial applications in the air transportation industry. This is work that could be more appropriately taken on by the

private sector, and does not require such a massive investment from the Federal Government.

This bill should not be read to imply that the work of the ARMD is not important. To the contrary, aeronautics research is perhaps some of the most directly relevant work to many Americans that NASA is involved in. This bill simply follows up on the President's call for the ARMD to focus its research efforts in the areas that are most appropriate. By refocusing on long-term fundamental aeronautics research, safety research, and ways to address the needs of the future air transportation system, ARMD should be able to operate effectively and efficiently under this spending cap.

One of the main reasons I first ran for the U.S. Senate was to restore fiscal responsibility to the Federal budget. I have continued to work to eliminate wasteful spending and to reduce the soaring budget deficit, which is now estimated at $300 billion this year. Unless we return to fiscally responsible budgeting, Congress will saddle our Nation's younger generations with an enormous financial burden for years to come. This bill is one small step in that direction.

Mr. President, I oppose this deeply flawed trade agreement. When the Senate passed its version of this legislation a few months ago, I noted that one group had said that this trade agreement is as bad as CAFTA, except where it is worse.

The Oman trade agreement is the latest in a series of agreements that have been based on the failed NAFTA-CAFTA model of trade that has shipped thousands of businesses and millions of jobs overseas, devastating communities across our country. The record of that model of trade is crystal clear. During the post-NAFTA era, our trade deficit has exploded from $98 billion in 1994 to $805 billion in 2005. And yet, once again we are debating more of the same.

As I noted in June, the Oman Free Trade Agreement is stamped from the NAFTA-CAFTA cookie cutter. It provides no real enforcement for the labor or environmental provisions. And even the most modest efforts to address the deficiencies of the NAFTA-CAFTA model were rejected by the White House. Most notably, an attempt by the Senate Finance Committee to deny trade benefits for products made with slave labor, approved unanimously by the Committee on an 18-to-0 vote, was rejected by the administration, which submitted this agreement without that reasonable protection.

You don't have to be a trade expert to know that our trade policy is alarmingly bad. When even the most reasonable addition is proposed by the Finance Committee to deny preferential benefits for products made by slaves, the administration refuses to include it.

Mr. President, any consultative role Congress was to have as part of the fast-track process has been shown to be meaningless. I very much hope my colleagues will remember this when we consider legislation to renew fast-track implementing authority. Until then, we should reject this and similarly flawed trade agreements.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is about to pass the Port Security Improvement Act of 2006.

This week our Nation observed the tragic anniversary of September 11, 2001. Five years after that horrific attack on our country, we honor those who lost their lives, and pay tribute to the heroism of the first responders who selflessly risked, and even gave, their lives in the rescue and recovery missions. Since that day, Congress has taken some actions to improve domestic preparedness and readiness, but there is much more we must do to help protect Americans from the threat of terrorism on our own soil. We must finish the job of implementing the bipartisan September 11 Commission's recommendations, including strengthening the security of our ports. Let us not get sidetracked from what should be our No. 1 priority, the fight against terrorism, and this port security bill is a key component in that fight.

Ports are a critical part of our Nation's infrastructure and an attack on our ports would have devastating consequences for the U.S. and the global economy. It is therefore of the utmost importance that our ports have adequate security measures put in place. That is why I supported a number of good provisions in this port security bill, such as the establishment of minimum security standards for all cargo entering the U.S., the requirement of radiation screening at the 22 busiest U.S. ports, and increased funding for the important port security grant program.

I was especially gratified to support the Murray amendment that extends certain Customs and Border Protection fees. While this might not appear to be much on first glance, this amendment was the difference between just authorizing these improved protections and providing the funding to put them in place. And it provides this funding in a responsible manner without adding to the deficit.

I was disappointed that the Senate rejected an amendment offered by Senator Schumer, which I cosponsored, that would prohibit foreign cargo from entering the U.S. unless the container has passed through an integrated scanning system and be tested for nuclear and radiological materials. This amendment would require, within two years, every container entering the U.S. from a foreign port designated under the Container Security Initiative--CSI--to be scanned before being loaded. This would cover the vast majority of transatlantic and transpacific cargo and be scaled up to scan all cargo within 4 years.

I was also disappointed that the Senate rejected the amendment offered by Senator Menendez that would have required the Department of Homeland Security to develop a plan to incrementally increase the amount of cargo scanned for all threats until 100 percent of cargo was examined. Congress needs to finish the job of implementing the bipartisan 9/11 Commission's recommendations to improve our national security, including heightened screening of cargo that passes through our Nation's ports.

I also supported the amendment of Senator Reid, which contained a number of important provisions addressing national security needs that are not addressed in the underlying bill. It is unfortunate that the Senate was unwilling to expand the scope of the bill to consider other matters relevant to fighting terrorism and protecting Americans. While I did not support every provision in the Reid amendment--it did not do enough to put this administration's flawed Iraq policy on the right course, for example--the Senate missed an important opportunity when it rejected that amendment.

Mr. President, I will vote for this bill because it provides funding for many important port 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, I join the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee in expressing my concerns about the Committee's inability to conduct oversight of the President's illegal warrantless wiretapping program. Unfortunately, the administration's continued defiance of Congress is simply the latest in a series of efforts to hide its illegal activities and obscure the true extent of its power grab.

Let us not forget how we got to this point. For 4 years, the administration conducted a plainly illegal program, eavesdropping on Americans on American soil without the warrants required under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. During this time, the administration refused to inform the full congressional intelligence committees, in clear violation of the National Security Act.

Then, late last year, the program was revealed in the press. Rather than admit that it had broken the law and explain why it had done so, the administration used the occasion to embark on a coordinated and misleading public relations campaign. In speeches and press conferences, administration officials repeatedly asserted that domestic eavesdropping without a warrant was necessary to conduct surveillance of terrorist suspects, and it suggested that those committed to the rule of law were unconcerned about the terrorist threat.

Even the title the administration has bestowed upon its illegal behavior--the Terrorist Surveillance Program--is misleading. We already have a ``terrorist surveillance program.'' It is called FISA. It permits the surveillance of terrorist suspects in the United States, with the approval of a secret court, and it has been the law of the land for nearly 30 years.

Let us also not forget the administration's illegal defiance of congressional oversight. For 4\1/2\ years, including several months after the warrantless wiretapping program was revealed in the press, the administration violated the National Security Act by refusing to brief the congressional intelligence committees on the program. The administration began the briefings required by law only when it became clear that its defiance might complicate the nomination of General Hayden, who, as the then-Director of the NSA, implemented the program and had been nominated as the new Director of the CIA. Despite months of public discussion about the program by administration officials, the majority of the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee were briefed about the program for the first time only on the eve of General Hayden's confirmation hearing in May.

Those of us who hoped that this belated briefing marked a change in attitude--and a recognition of the administration's legal responsibilities--were quickly disappointed. That is why, later that month, the full Senate Intelligence Committee called on the administration to work with the committee so that we could conduct ongoing, thorough oversight over the operational, legal and budgetary aspects of the program. The cooperation requested by the Committee has not happened, however. And, as the vice chairman has pointed out, the administration continues to refuse to provide the committee with critical documents and information necessary to review the program.

The congressional intelligence committees review highly sensitive classified intelligence programs every day. That is their job. The vast majority of those programs have never been publicly disclosed. Yet the warrantless wiretapping program--which has been the subject of speeches, press conferences and public testimony by administration officials, making it the most widely examined, the most public program in NSA's history--is the one program the administration still refuses to explain fully to the congressional intelligence committees.

The vice chairman of the committee has described some of the materials that the administration has thus far refused to provide the committee--Presidential orders authorizing the program, legal reviews and opinions relating to the program, and procedures and guidelines on the use of information obtained through the program. All of these materials relate to the legality of the program. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the administration has stonewalled the committee's efforts to conduct oversight of this program not because the program is uniquely sensitive, but because it is illegal.

While the Intelligence Committee has been unable to conduct oversight of the warrantless surveillance program, the Judiciary Committee, which this morning reported out a bill that seeks to legalize the program, has been denied access to any information about the program. Attorney General Gonzales has provided testimony to the Judiciary Committee, but that testimony has been limited to a careful repetition of only what the President has already publicly acknowledged. As a result, the Judiciary Committee does not have access to information it needed before it should even have begun considering legislation, including many of the legal documents denied the Intelligence Committee. The Judiciary Committee was left to legislate in the dark, with many members blindly seeking to legalize illegal behavior without even an understanding of whether those changes are actually necessary.

And now, we face the prospect that the full Senate may consider legislation related to the program. It is bad enough to have a committee legislate in the dark. But having the entire Senate debate legislation when just a few Senators--those on the Intelligence

Committee--have any information at all on the subject of the legislation only makes things worse.

In the rush to rubberstamp the administration's unconstitutional power grab, Congress could end up turning the legislative process on its head. As an institution, and as elected representatives of the American people, it is our responsibility to make sure the President complies with the law. Instead, Republican leaders are rushing to make sure the law complies with the President. That is far from the ringing affirmation of the rule of law that we should expect from Congress in response to the administration's law-breaking.

If Congress and the administration are going to take seriously their respective responsibilities, four things must happen. First, the congressional intelligence committees must demand that the administration provide documents and information related to the warrantless surveillance program and insist on the same kind of thorough oversight to which other intelligence programs are subject. The National Security Act requires that the committees be kept fully and currently informed of all intelligence programs. It is long past time for the administration to respect the spirit of that law.

Second, the administration must provide the information the Judiciary Committee needs about the program so that it can reconsider the uninformed and dangerous legislation reported out this morning. That does not mean the Judiciary Committee has to see operational details about the program. It does mean it needs to understand the basics of the program and the administration's contemporaneous legal justifications throughout the duration of the program. Certainly, the Judiciary Committee should not even have begun to consider expanding FISA before it received an explanation from the administration as to why it was unwilling to comply with current law. The administration has never provided that explanation because, in my view, it cannot. From what I have seen as a member of the Intelligence Committee, the surveillance that the administration says is necessary to protect this country can be accommodated without violating FISA.

We can listen in on terrorist suspects without surrendering the basic principle of individualized warrants. We can be secure without having to accept unchecked executive power. We can effectively fight terrorism without sacrificing the rights and freedoms that make this country the greatest beacon for individual liberty in the history of the world.

The mere assertion by the President that FISA no longer applies cannot be the basis for eradicating 30 years of law and jurisprudence. Congress should demand answers before deciding whether and how to amend

Mr. President, today I am introducing the gulf coast Housing Accessibility Act to address some of the challenges facing survivors of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita a year after the hurricanes struck the gulf coast. Two weeks ago, we commemorated the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina and honored those who lost their lives and those who lost their livelihoods last year. A year later, the people of New Orleans and the gulf coast continue to deal with an unfortunate reality--that in a lot of neighborhoods, it looks like the hurricanes hit a week ago, not a year ago.

Over the past year, I have heard from a number of Wisconsinites upset with the Federal Government's response to Katrina. They have made powerful pleas to not forget about the people who lost their homes, their communities and their way of life.

In July, I visited some neighborhoods in the New Orleans area that were ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. The painful realities about life there were everywhere--abandoned businesses, and homes and neighborhoods that were totally destroyed by the hurricane and its aftermath. The challenge of rebuilding is enormous. But what's even tougher is trying to rebuild in a way that helps everyone come back, not just people with access to more resources and different options. It is the responsibility of all levels of government to help those who want to come back regardless of their income level. We must ensure that the rebuilt gulf coast reflects the same cultural diversity that made it an American gem before the hurricanes struck. This legislation seeks to meet some of that responsibility by providing low income individuals and families with immediate and long term housing assistance as they rebuild their lives and move back to the gulf coast.

There are so many ways that gulf coast communities still need help-- creating jobs, rebuilding the school systems, and gutting damaged homes so that they can be rebuilt. And, when you see those blocks and blocks of neighborhoods that were destroyed--with no sign of reconstruction-- it's clear just how much help the people of New Orleans and the gulf coast need to find affordable housing.

Housing has to be affordable so that the gulf coast can get back to work. So many of the people who are the lifeblood of the tourism industry--like hotel and restaurant workers--want to call New Orleans home again, but they can't move back if they can't afford any place to live.

It's a testament to the strength of these communities that so many people want to come back, at every income level. You can't do that if you were working a minimum wage job that doesn't exist anymore, and you were renting an apartment that ended up engulfed in flood water.

There are a lot of barriers to moving back for homeowners, but it's also tough for gulf coast citizens who were renting when the hurricane hit. In the year since the hurricane struck, rents in the gulf coast region have skyrocketed, which makes it even more difficult for low income renters to return to their homes. With a significant percentage of renters in the New Orleans area before Katrina, we need to ensure that the housing assistance in the gulf coast is aimed at helping renters, as well as homeowners, rebuild their lives.

We've got to do something to help displaced residents--particularly low-income individuals--who want to move back to New Orleans. I have put together a few different ideas into one bill, building on some really good work on housing issues by some of my colleagues in the Senate. This bill doesn't tackle every problem, but it will help address some of the tough housing issues facing New Orleans and the gulf coast. It includes housing vouchers to help make rents affordable for the lowest income people and families. It also makes housing like the Katrina cottages--which are more like homes, and less like trailers--more available to those who want them. There have been a lot of problems with the FEMA trailers, so it's important to give people the option of living in a more permanent home. And finally it allows HUD to handle temporary rental assistance programs from here on out, instead of FEMA, which isn't equipped to handle housing issues like these for the long haul.

Not only does this legislation address the needs of current Katrina survivors, but the changes it makes to the Stafford Act to allow FEMA to provide permanent and semi-permanent housing, as well as allowing HUD to provide temporary housing assistance instead of FEMA, apply to future disasters also. The importance of this cannot be stressed enough--we in government must learn from our past mistakes and work to prevent such a horrible government response to future disasters.

A year after Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita, there is so much that we can still do--and that Congress can do--to help the gulf coast recover. We need to have serious conversations about the persistent poverty that still exists in the gulf coast and around our nation, for this poverty magnified the disaster of Hurricane Katrina. We need to develop solutions to address this poverty that exists in cities and rural communities throughout our country. We need to work to ensure the levees are built correctly. We need to better protect the diminishing wetlands of the gulf coast. But we also have to focus on the here and now--what people are facing on the gulf coast today. As we look at the images of the hurricanes a year later, and we remember what people went through, we also have to recognize how far we have to go, and rededicate ourselves to helping the people of the gulf coast make it home again.

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

Mr. President, today, our Nation honors the memory of those who were killed in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. We also pay tribute to the heroism of the first responders who selflessly risked, and even gave, their lives in the rescue and recovery missions that followed those horrific attacks. Five years after that tragic day, we still remember their tremendous bravery, and we remember the simple acts of kindness that Americans all over the country displayed as they donated equipment for the first responders, observed moments of silence, or flew the flag in a show of patriotism and unity. Each of these acts, however large or small, contributed to our Nation's recovery. Let us not forget the great strength of spirit that guided Americans through that difficult time as we move forward, bound together by our faith in this great and free Nation.

As we mark this solemn day, let us also rededicate ourselves to defeating the terrorists who continue to threaten us. This should not be a partisan issue every Senator wants to protect our country and every American wants to defeat the terrorists who attacked us. This must be our top priority, and we must strive to regain the unity and resolve that bound us together after 9/11 as we show the terrorists how badly they have underestimated the strength and resilience of the American people.