Floor Statements

Mr. President, today the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is holding a conference to delve into some of the policy questions that have delayed efforts to move forward with legislation addressing global warming. As many Americans have realized--even in the face of an absolute void of leadership from this current administration--one of the greatest challenges currently facing us is how to reduce our contributions to global climate change before it is too late for changes to matter. In fact, the majority of the American public believes that they have an individual role to play in being a part of the solution. And the public is looking to us, their elected leaders, to provide the framework for change.

As many people know, Senators Lieberman and McCain have been the longtime champions of raising awareness of global warming. Today's conference, under the leadership of Senators Domenici and Bingaman, demonstrates that more and more elected officials are willing to take a stand in recognizing the imminent need for action. Along with my constituents, I hope that the time will soon come when a majority of the U.S. Congress is willing to follow their lead.

On the heels of today's conference, another Senate committee is scheduled to consider the issue of global warming. Tomorrow, the Commerce Committee's Global Climate Change and Impacts Subcommittee will hear about the administration's approach to the issue. While the administration favors developing and sharing new zero and low-carbon technologies with developing nations, I submit that our citizens are looking for bold action that addresses more than how we will help developing countries--they want to know what we plan to do domestically.

Mr. President, if there ever was a time when it was all right to ignore global warming, that time has long passed. We have got to get real about this issue--and getting real will require a commitment to reducing our dependence on oil instead of continually talking about opening up a wildlife refuge for oil drilling. For, if we continue turning our backs on the reality of climate change, we might as well be turning our backs on our grandchildren--and this is why I am optimistic that the Senate's treatment of global warming is nearing its own tipping point, a point after which we will provide the leadership that our constituents are increasingly expecting from us.

Mr. President, today I want to express my concerns about the recent presidential election in Belarus.

I have previously noted the tremendous hardships Belarus has endured throughout its history. For centuries, Belarus has been fought over, occupied and carved up. But Belarus' declaration of independence from the Soviet Union in 1991 held great promise for a better future. As it broke from communist rule, it had the opportunity to build a free nation and become part of a peaceful, more secure Europe. The country began to embrace economic and political reforms and democratic principles. It established a constitution and held its first Presidential election in 1994.

Unfortunately, the prospect of democratic change in Belarus was quickly frozen as its first President, Alexander Lukashenka, adopted increasingly authoritarian policies, including amending the constitution in a flawed referendum to extend his term and broaden his powers. Lukashenka's regime has been marked by a terrible human rights record that is progressively getting worse, with little respect for freedom of expression, assembly or an independent media. A pattern of disturbing disappearances of opposition leaders fails to be seriously investigated by authorities. The living conditions in Belarus are declining and Lukashenka's refusal to institute economic reforms has only aggravated the situation.

The 2005 State Department Human Rights report states that ``the government's human rights record remained very poor and worsened in some areas with the government continuing to commit numerous serious abuses.'' The report goes on to acknowledge that Lukashenka ``systematically undermined the country's democratic institutions and concentrated power in the executive branch through flawed referenda, manipulated elections, and undemocratic laws and regulations.'' Mr. President, the litany of human rights abuses documented in this report show that Lukashenka has only used the last 12 years to increase the reign of tyranny and oppression in Belarus.

The elections of March 19, 2006 continued Lukashenka's repressive tactics and total disregard for democratic principles. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, which observed the elections, stated in its report that ``the arbitrary abuse of state power, obviously designed to protect the incumbent President, went far beyond acceptable practice. The incumbent President permitted State authority to be used in a manner which did not allow citizens to freely and fairly express their will at the ballot box.'' The report cited a ``climate of intimidation and insecurity'' and a ``highly problematic'' vote count during and after the election.

The recent so-called ``color revolutions'' in Georgia, the Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan, showed what can happen when a country's people become fed up with the oppression of tyrants and call for democratic, representative government. Let us hope that the fledgling democracy movement in Belarus has a similar chance to flower. A number of courageous Belarusians braved intimidation and took serious risks to denounce the election results in peaceful public demonstrations; unfortunately, these risks were made imminently clear when Belarusian security forces marched into the public square where they were rallying and forcibly detained a number of them in the early morning hours of March 24. I add my voice to the chorus of those calling for the Belarusian authorities to respect the rights of their citizens, hold valid elections, and immediately release those who were detained simply for peacefully expressing their views.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, first of all, I commend my friend from Connecticut and also the Senator from Pennsylvania for their amendment on meals that was offered before the recess, and also the Senator from Mississippi, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for accepting it. If we are going to have a lobbyist gift ban, it clearly has to include meals. The provision in the underlying bill that allowed for Senators and staff to continue dining at the expense of lobbyists as long as those meals are disclosed on the Senator's Web site would have been an administrative nightmare and also created a subculture of lawbreaking just as, unfortunately, the $50 limit has done.

The way we avoid that is just to ban meals from lobbyists, as we have banned gifts in the underlying bill.

I am obviously not going to stand here and say that any Senator's vote can be purchased for a free meal or a ticket to a football game. But I do not think anyone can say that all lobbyists are buying these meals out of the goodness of their heart. At this point, no reform bill is going to be credible that does not contain a strict lobbyist gift ban. And no one has ever explained to me why Members of Congress need to be allowed to accept free meals, tickets, or any other gift from a lobbyist. If you really want to have dinner with a lobbyist, no one is saying that you cannot. Just take out your wallet and pay your own way. I can tell my colleagues from personal experience that you will survive just fine under a no-gifts policy. The Wisconsin Legislature has had such a policy for some 30 years and I brought it here with me to Washington. And I certainly have not gone hungry.

We ought to just stop the practice of eating out at the expense of others. It is not necessary. It looks bad. It leads to abuses. So I support the Dodd-

Santorum amendment on meals and I am glad that it was adopted.

Here is the problem that I seek to address in my amendment. We have just said that we want to ban all gifts from lobbyists--tickets, meals, presents, everything. But it is a little known fact that the Ethics Committee already has in place an interpretation of the term ``registered lobbyist'' that narrows it somewhat. That interpretation might make some sense for the prohibitions on lobbyists that are currently in our rules. But that same interpretation, if it is applied to this gifts and meals ban, will create a huge loophole.

Here is how it works. As my colleagues know, the Lobbying Disclosure Act requires organizations, trade associations, and companies that employ in-house lobbyists to file a single registration. The registrant is the organization, and it lists its individual lobbyists on its registration form. For purposes of the gift rules now, the Ethics Committee treats the actual listed lobbyists as registered lobbyists, but not the organization. If you do not believe me, look on page 43 of the Ethics Manual. Here is the language:

For purposes of applying the special restrictions on

lobbyists in the Gifts Rule, an organization employing

lobbyists (outside or in-house) to represent solely the

interests of the organization or its members will not be

considered to be a ``lobbyist.''

If that interpretation is applied to the gift and meals ban, that means that the organization can continue to offer gifts and meals to Senators and staff.

So, for example, a company can give a Senator free tickets to a show or a baseball game, as long as a lobbyist doesn't actually offer or handle them. If the lobbyist's secretary makes the call or the organization's CEO president, that would be permitted, or a lobbyist can invite a Senator or staffer to dinner, as long as he brings along someone else from the organization to pick up the tab with the company credit card.

Let me read some of the companies and organizations that have registered under the LDA because they have in-house lobbyists. All of the organizations I am about to list, and hundreds more, will be able to continue to give gifts unless my amendment is adopted: Chamber of Commerce for the U.S.A.; Association of Trial Lawyers of America; General Electric Co.; American Medical Association; Northrop Grumman Corp.; Edison Electric Institute; AFL-CIO; Verizon Communications Inc.; Business Roundtable; Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America; National Association of Realtors; ExxonMobil Corp.; SBC Communications Inc.; Boeing Co.; Lockheed Martin; AT&T Corp.; General Motors Corp.; American Association of Retired Persons (AARP); Sprint Corp.; Microsoft Corp; American Council of Life Insurance; Pfizer Inc.; National Association of Broadcasters; Citigroup; J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.; Securities Industry Association; American Bankers Association; The Seniors Coalition; Ford Motor Co.; Merck & Co.; American Bankers Association; American Farm Bureau Federation; IBM Corp.; National Cable and Telecommunications; Association and state affiliates; Eli Lilly and Co.; Brown & Williamson Tobacco; American International Group Inc.; General Dynamics Corp.; Motorola Inc.; Southern Co.; BellSouth Corp.; ChevronTexaco; Investment Company Institute; Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.; GlaxoSmithKline; DaimlerChrysler Corp.; Textron Inc.; Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.; United States Telecom Association; Intel Corp.; National Association of Manufacturers; Health Insurance Association of America; Time Warner; Marathon Oil Corp.; American Association of Health Plans; Abbott Laboratories; Union Pacific Corp.; American Chemistry Council; BP Amoco; Shell Oil Co.; United Technologies Corp.; Mortgage Insurance Companies of America; Honeywell, Inc.; Qwest Communications International Inc.; Property Casualty Insurers Association of America; Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association; Wyeth; Walt Disney Co.; Biotechnology Industry Organization; Prudential Financial Cos.; Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.; Monsanto Co.; CTIA--The Wireless AssociationTM (formerly the Cellular Telecom Industry Association); The Bond Market Association; Asbestos Study Group; Johnson & Johnson, Inc.; Schering-Plough Corp.; Procter & Gamble Co.; American Forest & Paper Association; National Federation of Independent Business; American Institute of CPAs; Raytheon Co.; Visa USA Inc.; American Airlines; and International Paper Co.

These are all companies that have registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act because they have inhouse lobbyists. So let me repeat. All of the organizations I just listed, and hundreds more, will be able to continue to give gifts, tickets, and meals unless my amendment is adopted. By the way, each of the organizations I just listed has reported spending between $15 and $200 million on lobbying activities between 1998 and 2004. So let me make this very clear. If these companies can still give gifts, we won't have a real lobbyist gift ban. We won't be able to look the American people in the eye and say, ``we just banned gifts from lobbyists,'' because we didn't.

We ought to just stop the practice of eating out at the expense of others. But we need to make sure it's a real ban. My amendment will do that. It simply says that for purposes of the gift ban only, the term ``registered lobbyist'' means any person or entity who is registered under the LDA and any employee of that entity. Very simple, and very fair.

Now let me point out one other thing before people get all worried. All of the exceptions in the current gift rule continue to apply to the meals and gift ban. That means it does not impact our colleagues, relatives, personal friendship, widely attended events, food and drink of nominal value, etc. So that means that employees of these organizations can still have their friends who work on the Hill over for dinner, they can still go out on dates, they can still exchange Christmas gifts, they can still get a housewarming gift from a neighbor. Organizations can still host receptions and Members and staff can attend and have a bit to eat. My amendment simply makes sure that organizations that are registered under the LDA can't get around the gift ban by having people other than their lobbyists offer tickets or meals or other gifts.

I say this with great respect for the Senators who have worked so hard in putting this bill together.

If we are serious about changing the rule on gifts and meals, we have to take the interpretation seriously. My amendment makes it clear that we mean what we say. The era of the free lunch will be over. For real. As it should be. If it is not adopted, there is no conclusion to be drawn but that we are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people. I don't want that to be the story coming out of this debate. I hope the managers will accept this amendment and, if not, I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I enjoyed listening to the remarks of the Senator from Mississippi. This reminds me of the experience in 1994 when there was stiff resistance to the idea of having a gift ban in the Senate. We achieved a significant victory by having at least a $50 limit which has been, unfortunately, abused to this day.

I would like, at this time, to get this done in a way that does not cause us to have to come back. The point I make to my friend from Mississippi is that this is a real loophole. I am not trying to find some esoterical problem. It is a real loophole if employees of large companies, where the companies are registered as lobbyists, if they are able to buy meals. It undercuts the whole idea that we are prohibiting meals by lobbyists and their employees.

I make two responses. First, this does not apply to companies that are not registered as lobbyists. For example, if the Senator from Mississippi were to have lunch with, say, a banker in Jackson, MS, whose company bank does not have a lobbyist, this does not affect that situation. Let's not exaggerate how far it goes.

What is more important, I don't understand the premise. The Senator said he would not be able to have lunch or have dinner with a CEO. Why not? All you have to do is split the bill. It is that simple. Maybe it is a different cultural tradition, but in Wisconsin if you go to lunch with someone, or dinner, more times than not, you split the bill. It seems to me that Senators know how to do that. It is not about the person trying to buy you a meal. It is just a good thing for us to do.

Whether this is practical or impractical, I say this again, we have had this rule in Wisconsin for over 30 years for our State legislature. It has worked just fine. Sometimes we kid around about it, the cup of coffee situation, but it is a good, clean rule. And people understand, when you are a legislator in Wisconsin, you pay your own way. That is all there is to it. It is that simple.

I don't want to prohibit the Senator from Mississippi or anyone else from socializing with whomever he wants, and I certainly enjoy sharing dinner with friends. Sometimes, they are lobbyists. There is no problem, though, with paying your own way.

If we don't do this, if we do not adopt this amendment, we are stuck with a big loophole. I think the fears about this being difficult to administer are exaggerated.

I retain the balance of my time.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I express my gratitude not only for the Senator's kind remarks to the Senator from Connecticut but I am pretty sure the McCain-Feingold effort that we fought for, for 8 years, would not have succeeded if not for the brilliant leadership of the Senator as manager on the floor, for which I am always grateful and also for his friendship.

I pursue the example that the Senator raised in a constructive way. In the scenario the Senator raised where the secretary would come with lobbyists, what is the Senator's thought about how she would be paying for that? Would she be paying for that with the company credit card, for example?

Or with a personal?

And does the Senator agree, under your current amendment, that the secretary would be able to use the company credit card to pay for it under the amendment we have agreed to?

On this point--obviously, it may not be a secretary or a CEO of a company; it could be some other employee--would the Senator at least consider whether we should take the step of prohibiting the use of company resources or company credit cards? In other words, I think it should be broader. You have raised some concerns about that. What about allowing personal resources to be used but not company resources?

I think the Senator sees where I am going with this. I think the Ethics Committee and others will have to be very reasonable interpreters.

I will have him respond on my time.

The situation is that you are raising situations with personal friends, and in those situations I don't disagree, I don't think there would be a problem. I think the exception would be properly interpreted.

I am asking the Senator to at least perhaps consider whether we really want the kind of scenario that the Senator posits, where a company basically lines up people to come in and act as the person that uses the company credit card. It seems to me we have an opportunity to fix something here, not go as far as I want to go but at least prevent the use of company resources and at the same time avoid the possibility of the true personal friendship situation from being affected.

Mr. President, obviously, not only do I respect what the Senator from Connecticut is doing, but I know his intentions are absolutely to have the strongest possible bill we can have.

What I am trying to do, as strongly as I feel about this issue-- because, again, Wisconsin has had this system, and it has worked just fine. So based on my own personal experience, this is not some kind of a crazy system. Nonetheless, what I am trying to get at is a way that we could have a rule, that even if somebody is technically considered a lobbyist--or we could do it some other way--they just could not use company resources to purchase the meal. That seems to me to be a very reasonable step.

When somebody goes out to lunch or dinner with somebody, it is one thing if they buy a friend or even someone they just met a meal, it is another thing when they are using that company credit card. So obviously I am interested in the amendment I have offered, but I would ask the Senator to think about whether what I am saying is an attempt to come to some kind of a reasonable agreement that actually addresses the hypothetical that he has raised.

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

Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?

I thank the Senator from Mississippi.

I do not know if I will use the whole time.

Mr. President, I have such regard for the Senator from Maine that I would consider an exception for any lobster in Maine because she and I have shared lobster in Maine, and that is a very special thing I think everyone would accept.

My admiration for this Senator from Maine on these issues is truly boundless. She is the one who, somehow, we convinced to join us very early on McCain-Feingold. And just like I said about Senator Dodd, if not for Senator Collins, there is no way this major reform would have ever passed. So I am talking to some of the people who truly

have been reformers in Congress over the years, some of them much longer than I have been. And I say all of this with respect.

Let me say this. We know, because some of us have been working on this for some time, that these opportunities for reform do not come up every year. They tend to come up when something bad happens, whether it be the concerns about the 1996 campaign finance violations or the Abramoff scandal. It is not like we are going to have a chance to do this next year because that is not the way this place works. And, frankly, there are weightier matters that face this country.

But I am warning my colleagues, this is a chance to not have another embarrassing loophole. If we do not do what I am suggesting here, we are going to be embarrassed. There are going to be meals arranged--not the kind of scenario Senator Dodd suggested: an innocent situation but a gaming of this meal ban to allow expensive meals to be bought by people who work for some of the companies I have listed.

I do not think people are going to feel good about that. I think it could raise some of the very things we talked about in terms of the whole Abramoff scandal that led to this. I think we are missing an important opportunity to make sure this bill passes the test with the American people. So again, with respect, I offer this amendment to make sure this amendment works.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. President, I am grateful to the Senator from Delaware for his support and his ideas on this issue because he obviously knows what he is talking about, having been a Member of this body for a very long time.

I think, obviously, I will try to find some other way to do this. But he has stated the key point. This is not hard to do. This is what we have done in Wisconsin for decades. It is very simple to pay your own way. I do not know what it is, but I cannot understand what the problem is with having that kind of a clear prohibition. I think we will all be better off.

Mr. President, has the other side yielded their time? Has their time expired?

Mr. President, I yield my time.

Mr. President, when Jack Abramoff pled guilty in January, it was clear that the Senate would have to address lobbying and ethics reform this year. For a short time, it seemed like significant reforms had become possible. While this bill contains many positive provisions, it falls too far short of what I hoped could be achieved for me to support it. So I will vote no.

Ethics reform is not something that happens around here every year. Unfortunately, it takes a perfect storm to get Congress to address these difficult issues. We had that perfect storm this year with the Jack Abramoff scandal, which exposed the seamy side of relations between lobbyists and Members of Congress. We had a chance to take decisive action and really change the way things work in Washington. Unfortunately, we have missed that chance.

We had the chance to give the American people what they want and deserve--a strong brew of tough lobbying and ethics reforms. Instead, all we gave them is weak tea.

The lobbying and ethics reform bill before us today includes a number of significant provisions, such as improvements in lobbying disclosure. But the Senate missed a once-in-a-decade opportunity to address the most serious ethical problems plaguing Congress. It left open a major loophole in the lobbyist gift ban, it retreated from earlier promises to get rid of privately funded travel, it allowed Members to continue getting around revolving door restrictions by simply avoiding direct conversations with their former colleagues while accepting millions of dollars to run a lobbying office, and it refused to even vote on a proposal to make Senators pay the charter rate if they want to fly on corporate jets. Perhaps most important, the Senate rejected a thoughtful proposal to establish an independent ethics enforcement office.

The American people want to have confidence that their elected officials are held to the highest ethical standards. My judgment is that this bill doesn't meet that test.

Madam President, I support Senator Sarbanes' effort to restore funding for our agencies and programs directed at natural resource conservation and management and some of our fundamental environmental responsibilities. The programs and agencies include the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, the National Park Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Forest Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, and others. I do believe that we must meet our stewardship responsibilities and the President's budget simply doesn't cut it.

I do, however, want to flag a problem related to the Army Corps of Engineers. It is a problem that cripples the Corps: The minute its budget arrives on our doorsteps, Members of Congress scramble for Corps earmarks. We must move away from this earmarking and focus on national priorities. I will continue working to change the way this agency operates.

Mr. President, today, the Senate allowed its budget process to be hijacked by those seeking to move a policy issue that has been rightly rejected so many times. I opposed the manipulation of process in the Budget Committee and I opposed final passage this evening. Using the reconciliation process to advance a single controversial policy--a policy that should be considered through the appropriate legislative channels--is shameless.

We debated drilling in the Arctic last spring. We debated it again last fall, and at that time, a number of House Republicans shot the idea down. Then, in December, we wasted more time on the issue. This year, nine members of the Budget Committee reached out ahead of time to Chairman Gregg and Ranking Member Conrad asking that the budget process not be used to revisit drilling in the Arctic Refuge, and yet, it was. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I oppose drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but if we are going to debate this policy, we should do so openly--not through a backdoor budget maneuver. My colleagues who want to open the Arctic Refuge to drilling should go through the regular legislative process that the rest of us use to advance policy initiatives. After all, what message do you send when you manipulate a process simply because the normal procedure does not give you the outcome you want? That is not a message this body should endorse.

Proponents will say that using the budget process is the only way they can get an up-or-down vote. My response is simple. I know how hard it is to be very close to having the votes to pass legislation, but not quite being there. Senator McCain and I worked very hard on our campaign finance reform legislation to get the votes needed to move forward--it took years--but we stuck with it until we could get the legislation passed. We fought hard but we fought fair. We did not--and we would not have--tried to advance our legislation by manipulating the budget process. This single reconciliation instruction opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is simply out of bounds.

My concerns, however, go beyond the obvious abuse of process. The bottom line is that the revenue assumptions are highly speculative and in no way reflect reality. For a second, let's ignore the fact that last year a Bush adviser was quoted as saying that ``even if you gave the oil companies the refuge for free, they wouldn't want to drill there'' and let's look at the numbers.

The Congressional Budget Office assumes $6 billion in revenues while the President's budget puts the number at $7 billion. Based on past proposals, 400,000 to 600,000 acres in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would be on the leasing block. Therefore, to achieve the administration's estimate, companies would have to pay between $17,500 and $11,667 per acre to make it to the $7 billion level. To get to CBO's estimate, they would have to pay between $15,000 and $10,000 per acre to get to a total of $6 billion. Now let's consider these numbers a bit more closely to see how they line up with reality:

Since 1991, 40 lease sales on the North Slope and in near-shore waters have brought in an average of only $60.47 per leased acre in real 2006 dollars. CBO's projections are 165 times greater than the inflation-adjusted average during the last 16 years.

Think that higher gas prices will mean higher lease bids? Think again. In December of 2005, CBO said that higher gas prices at the pump don't directly translate into higher lease bids by oil companies, and cited other factors--such as operating and capital costs and the attractiveness of competing projects elsewhere--that influence bid amounts.

Additionally, the reconciliation instruction assumes $3 billion in Federal revenues, based on a 50/50 split between the State of Alaska and the U.S. Treasury. Given public statements by members of the Alaska delegation, as recently as last December, this 50/50 split is, at best, speculative.

Some may argue that oil company activities in the Arctic Refuge could be done in an environmentally safe manner. I would point out to them that earlier this month the largest crude oil spill in the history of oil and gas operations was discovered on Alaska's North Slope. To quote an employee of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, ``Hopefully, the tundra will recover. It's never going to be perfect.'' I don't think anyone wants to contemplate the possibility of such an accident occurring within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

During his State of the Union Address, the President acknowledged our

addiction to oil. I hoped that this would mean we could move forward to discuss real energy solutions, solutions that protect our national security, our citizens, and our environment, as I continue to believe that we can do all three. In fact, there are bipartisan bills out there to move our transportation sector to renewable sources of energy and sadly we spend our time talking about this issue, an issue that divides us. When are we going to move past this divisive debate to discuss real energy solutions for the 21st century?

If we do not stand against misuse of the legislative process, then every member of this esteemed body is at risk. Today, I cast a vote against abuse and in favor of the integrity of the Senate.

Mr. President, I have spoken on the floor several times about the administration's ill-conceived, poorly executed, and self- defeating strategy in Iraq. Today, I intend to talk about how the war in Iraq is having a far-reaching and negative impact on our ability to conduct an effective fight against international terrorism. I saw this firsthand during a recent visit to Thailand and Indonesia, two valuable partners in the fight against terrorism in a strategically critical and often underappreciated region. I visited these two countries to gain a detailed understanding of the radical Jihadist networks that are proliferating throughout the region and of what it will take to effectively confront this threat.

I bring back from the trip both good news and bad news. The good news is that we have a significant opportunity in Thailand, Indonesia, and in Southeast Asia in general, to get our counterterrorism strategy right. It is not too late to stem the relationship between international terrorist networks and local extremist organizations. Nor is it too late to tackle the root causes of extremism in the region.

Unfortunately, there is bad news. Unless we develop a truly comprehensive, global strategy to counter terrorist threats, we will miss the opportunity to gain the upper hand in the fight against terrorism in Southeast Asia at what couldn't be a more critical time. And changing our misguided policies in Iraq must be a central element of this strategy.

First, international terrorist networks are alive and well in Southeast Asia. During my visit, I examined the current nature of a leading regional terrorist organization, al-Jesmaah al-Islamiyah, or ``JI'', and its affiliates--the threat it continues to pose to countries throughout the region, how it has survived the deaths and arrests of some of its key leaders, and its ties with al-Qaida. Most importantly, I gained a more detailed understanding of the conditions that have provided JI with a recruitment base and operational space.

JI takes advantage of vast areas of ocean, isolated islands, weak or corrupt local and provincial governments, the absence of rule of law, and marginalized Islamic populations to develop its strength. JI has a presence throughout the region. And while arrests of prominent JI leaders in the last few years have helped shed light on the organization, it continues to operate in loosely formed cells, in regionally oriented entities, and in partnership with other terrorist organizations like the Abu Sayyaf group in the Philippines.

That said, according to a number of sources, including the International Crisis Group, Congressional Research Service, and the State Department, JI and al-Qaida have developed a symbiotic relationship. There is some overlap in membership. They have shared training camps in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Mindanao, and often help one another with supply chain systems and transportation. Al-Qaida has also provided JI with considerable financial support

JI and al-Qaida also exploit similar ground as they seek safe haven and new recruits. These groups feed on anti-United States and anti- Western sentiment, fueled in part by discontent and anger about United States policies in Iraq. Unfortunately, the administration's refusal to provide a flexible timeline for withdrawing United States troops from Iraq allows these groups to portray us as occupiers of a Muslim country. Until we show that we are truly committed to redeploying United States troops from Iraq, terrorist organizations will continue to find recruits in otherwise moderate Muslim communities, and we will continue to make it harder to win the full backing of potential partners and allies in the fight against terrorist networks.

It is in this light that I would like to lay out some of my key observations from my recent trip. I will talk about the political and security dynamics in both Thailand and Indonesia, and will argue that a new counterterrorism strategy in the region must incorporate respect for human rights, the rule of law, and the need to hold our friends and allies accountable for making necessary democratic reforms.

I would like to begin with Thailand. Thailand is a critical strategic partner of the United States in, among other things, the fight against al-Qaida and its affiliates. Our close political and military relationship goes back decades and is a vital component of United States national security policies in the region. The 1954 Manila Pact, together with the 1962 Thanat-Rusk communique, forms the basis of the longstanding United States-Thai security relationship. Thailand's airfields and ports play a particularly important role in United States global military strategy, including having served as the primary hub of the relief effort for the Indian Ocean tsunami.

Thailand has also shown its willingness to stand by the United States in

recent military campaigns. Thailand sent 130 soldiers, mostly engineers, to Afghanistan to participate in the reconstruction phase of Operation Enduring Freedom. Specifically, Thai forces are responsible for the construction of a runway at Bagram Airbase, medical services, and some Special Forces operations.

Thailand also contributed to reconstruction efforts in Iraq by dispatching over 450 troops, including medics and engineers, to the southern city of Karbala. The deployment proved unpopular with the Thai public, however, particularly in the volatile southern provinces, and in September 2004, Thai troops were withdrawn from Iraq.

While Thailand has been and will continue to be a strong ally, my visit occurred during a politically fragile time for the government. Public demonstrations and significant political pressure on the Prime Minister highlighted the challenges of conducting an effective and responsible counterinsurgency campaign while managing domestic political pressures. The Thai Government has also struggled to account for over 2,000 extrajudicial killings over the last few years, the kidnapping of a prominent human rights lawyer by Thai police and his death in police custody, and overly aggressive and heavy-handed tactics used in the counterinsurgency campaign that in one case resulted in the killing of over 70 detained suspects.

At the same time, though, preparations for national celebrations of the King's 60-year reign underscored the underlying stability of Thailand's constitutional monarchy. It is this stability that has permitted the United States to pursue close counterterrorism and other strategic ties with Thailand that transcend individual politicians and parties. It also provides the foundation of a partnership that can and must be based not only on an understanding of a common threat, but on a shared commitment to finding solutions to the conditions that breed extremism and terrorism.

My visit to Thailand focused primarily on Thailand's counterterrorism role in the region. As I mentioned, longstanding tensions in the mostly Muslim southern provinces of Thailand have recently exploded into violent unrest that has claimed hundreds of lives. The unrest, which has elements of a separatist insurgency, included brutal attacks on civilians. Insurgent tactics have sometimes suggested the influence of international terrorism, but Thai, United States Government, and independent experts believe that neither al-Qaida nor its Southeast Asian affiliates have been behind the violence so far. Thai officials have noted publicly, however, that there has been evidence that many of those involved in the unrest in the south had received militant schooling or training outside of Thailand. It is possible that in the near future international terrorist organizations like JI could exploit the continuing unrest in Thailand's southern provinces.

The United States needs to have a clear understanding of what is happening in Thailand in order to formulate an appropriate policy response. With our Thai partners, we must remain vigilant to the possibility that international terrorist organizations could take advantage of unrest among disaffected Muslim populations in the south.

When I met Prime Minister Thaksin and a number of his key advisors and cabinet members, I stressed the need for the Thai Government to confront the root causes of this unrest before it becomes an international security concern. This means promoting human rights and accountability for abuses that have been committed by Thai security forces and have helped fuel the unrest, as well as increasing opportunities for disaffected or marginalized communities to join regional and international economies. It also means promoting civil society, economic development, transparency and increased political participation of the Muslim community.

I was pleased to learn of the progress being made by the National Reconciliation Council to address grievances stemming from the government's policies in the South. I urged the Prime Minister to take seriously the recommendations that the NRC will be delivering in the coming months, and to emphasize the value of honoring the NRC as a mechanism for strengthening dialogue between the Thai people and the government.

I would like to shift to Indonesia now. After 3 days of meeting with senior Indonesian Government officials including the President, the Foreign and Defense Ministers, the new Chief of the Indonesian military, and the police chief, I have a new sense of optimism about United States-Indonesian relations. But while I am optimistic about progress being made there, limited progress in areas such as military reform and accountability for past crimes against humanity could undermine further democratic reforms and counterterrorism efforts.

Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim country, and it is a critical player in the global fight against al-Qaida and its affiliates. The terrorist organization al-Jamaah al-Islamiyah and associated groups in the region pose a serious threat to Indonesia and to the interests of the United States, our allies, and our friends. In response to this threat, we need a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy and a bilateral relationship with Indonesia aimed at fighting terrorism while supporting that country's efforts at democratization. Fighting terrorism and supporting democratization are not incompatible--in fact, democratic reforms and the growth of civil society in Indonesia have gone hand in hand with expanded counterterrorism efforts, providing a clear indication that Indonesia's political reforms do not come at the cost of the government's ability to fight terrorism.

While the United States-Indonesia relationship has never been more important, Indonesia's effectiveness in countering terrorist networks and other emerging threats hinges on its ability to reform its government, address past crimes and abuses, and improve both the transparency and the effectiveness of the central and provincial governments.

We cannot forget that the Government of Indonesia has had a poor human rights record. The Indonesian military in particular has long been a perpetrator of human rights abuses as well as a serious obstacle to democratization. In recent years, efforts to reform the military, while commendable, have produced mixed results. The greatest improvement has been an increase in civilian control of the military and the withdrawal of the military from active politics.

Ridding the Indonesian military of its private business holdings and providing greater transparency have been harder to achieve. In some areas, the military's treatment of civilian populations has improved, but abuses still occur and there has been virtually no accountability for past human rights violations. There is still a considerable amount of distance to travel for the government and the military to become ``reformed,'' and while progress is being made, more needs to be done.

Serious tensions continue in Papua, the remote easternmost province of Indonesia. Serious unrest due to repressive government policies, poverty, and recent abuses by the Indonesian military and police forces has created an environment of distrust, and I urged the Government of Indonesia to address the abuses that are taking place and immediately open up Papua to journalists and human rights organizations. Doing so would be an important step toward making transparency and justice the new norm for Indonesia.

United States policy toward Indonesia, including the implementation of the administration's decision to resume military assistance, must take these ongoing concerns into account. We must ensure that our assistance promotes reform and human rights, we must remain vigilant to any backsliding, and we must develop clear benchmarks for progress.

Carefully circumscribing any new military assistance is critical to formulating an effective bilateral counterterrorism relationship. There may be areas where the Indonesian military's role is warranted, such as maritime security in the Strait of Malacca. But any resurrection of the military's historical role in domestic security would be counterproductive to the fight against terrorism, not least because it would likely alienate much of the population. We must therefore make clear that such a development would undermine our bilateral relationship.

We must also be alert to the risk that military assistance could overwhelm other elements of a larger counterterrorism strategy. If Indonesia is going to effectively fight terrorism, it must develop a professional, capable, and honest police force and strong judiciary. An imbalanced United States assistance program could harm reform efforts and undermine Indonesia's nascent efforts to coordinate the counterterrorism roles of its various military, police and civilian agencies.

Finally, we must expand assistance programs in the areas of education, economic development and the promotion of civil societies. No counterterrorism strategy can succeed unless the political, social and economic conditions that breed terrorism are confronted head on.

I do believe that we have an opportunity to create and execute a comprehensive and effective counterterrorism strategy in Southeast Asia. This strategy needs to take into account the unique nature of each of our partners in the region and their internal political, social, and economic dynamics, while addressing the root causes of extremism and the conditions that fuel or support the growth of terrorist networks.

The United States can take a leadership role in the region and can help friends and allies like Thailand and Indonesia engage as full partners in the fight against terrorist networks. In many cases, the United States should push strongly for ending abusive or heavy-handed government policies, addressing past human rights abuses, and opening political space that allows the freedom to express political discontent or dissatisfaction with government leaders or policies.

Unfortunately, our policies in Iraq are making it increasingly difficult to execute such a strategy effectively. Public opinion in Southeast Asia is critically important if we are to dry up potential havens and recruiting grounds for terrorists. In Thailand, neither anti-American nor anti-Western sentiment has taken root. At the same time, however, Thai officials have stated that the withdrawal of Thai troops from Iraq was motivated in part by the Iraq war's unpopularity in the Muslim community. Indonesians' views on United States policy in Iraq are harsher still, ranging from indifference to deep suspicion. At best, Iraq is seen as ``America's problem;'' at worst, people question our motives for being there. These widely held views make the critically important work of engaging our friends and allies in the fight against al-Qaida and its affiliates that much more difficult.

There are also opportunity costs to our narrow focus on Iraq. The war in Iraq has drained precious resources away from what must be a global counterterrorism strategy, one that addresses the dangers of weak states and regions. The war also undercuts critical elements of this strategy. Widespread global skepticism about our policies in Iraq makes it all the more difficult for us to promote human rights and the rule of law while seeking partners against extremism and violence.

The President's misguided, Iraq-centric foreign policy is both symptom and cause of an alarming failure to conduct a comprehensive, global war on the terrorist networks that threaten us. Southeast Asia is but one of the regions that requires more focused attention. We cannot afford to continue treating threats in this and other parts of the world as secondary to an Iraq-focused national security strategy. The time has long since come for the President to set a flexible timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, and to develop a comprehensive, global strategy to fight terrorist networks and the conditions that breed them.

Mr. President, I wish to bring attention to troubling political developments in Kenya. Earlier this week, Kenyans witnessed the most aggressive assault on media since the country's independence in 1963, when elite police and paramilitary commandos armed with AK-47s stormed the offices of the Standard Group's TV station, Kenya Television Network and the Standard newspaper. Internal Security Minister John Michuki ordered the event in an apparent attempt to prevent the newspaper from publishing a story on a sensitive political matter. Saying little more than ``when you rattle a snake you must prepare to be bitten,'' President Kibaki has failed to take swift and sufficient action to condemn this event.

Unfortunately, this event, while deeply troubling in itself, is but the latest manifestation of a larger problem in Kenya today. Over the last year, President Kibaki and senior members of his government have presided over a growing level of turmoil concerning corruption charges, mismanagement of public funds, insufficient anti-corruption efforts, and political favoritism. Particularly troubling are allegations that senior members of Kibaki's government have been involved in a number of large, illegal business dealings with public money. The most visible of these allegations--which Mr. Kibaki apparently knew about more than a year ago--came to light in a report written by the man who was appointed by the president himself to help expose corruption. He is now in London in exile after receiving death threats.

I am concerned that Kenya may be backsliding. Just 4 years ago, the Kenyan people went to the polls and marked an historic event in the country's political history. Kenyans unambiguously rejected years of mismanagement, corruption, and declining economic growth experienced under previous regimes. The opposition National Rainbow Coalition, NARC, was overwhelmingly elected to power, ending more than 40 years of rule by the Kenya African National Union, KANU. Now, only 4 years after these elections, President Kibaki's government is beginning to revert to strong-man tactics as evidenced in this week's raid. It also apparently unwilling to take seriously the significant corruption present throughout senior levels of Kenya's government and in the president's own cabinet.

While these are discouraging developments, I am heartened that the Kenyan people have responded with such passion. Kenyans are rightfully outraged. Thousands of demonstrators filled the streets of Nairobi on Tuesday, and a range of media sources denounced the raid as ``thuggish'' and ``corrupt.'' Radio programs, TV shows, and newspapers are devoting significant attention to the government's inept management of corruption charges and the recent raid. Resignations of key ministers, new court cases, and active opposition parties are all testaments to the positive political developments Kenya has made. It is essential that Kenyans do not lose this progress.

We have an opportunity to send a firm message to President Kibaki that this type of behavior does not benefit his government or the Kenyan people. Kenya is a critical partner in a particularly important region. It has served as a leader in the region and in Africa, and will continue to be a friend to the United States. But if Kenya's government wants to maintain its credibility as a government representative of the Kenyan people and a leader in the region, it must take immediate actions to address recent developments and renew its pledge to fight corruption.

In conclusion, the international community must condemn in the strongest manner possible the Kenyan government's use of security forces to limit political discussion and the freedom of the press. The international community must also support efforts of Kenyan citizens to hold their government accountable for weeding out corruption and political favoritism. As the country turns its attention toward the 2007 general elections, the international community must help Kenyans strengthen democratic processes, advance political freedoms, and fight corruption--and perhaps most importantly, signal to President Kibaki that

too much progress has been made in Kenya to allow for a reversion to old, corrupt, violent political practices.

Mr. President, today I am 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.

Every 2 minutes, someone in America falls into sudden cardiac arrest. By improving access to 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. Ninety-five sudden deaths from cardiac arrest occur each day in Wisconsin alone. Overall, heart disease kills more Americans than AIDS, cancer and diabetes 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 for victims of cardiac arrest. 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 163,221 Americans experience out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrests each year. Immediate CPR and early defibrillation using an automated external defibrillator, 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. This program is entering its second year of helping rural communities purchase defibrillators and train first responders, and 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.

If we give people in rural communities a chance, they may be able to reverse a cardiac arrest before it takes another life. Unfortunately, the President zeroed out the funding for the Rural AED program in fiscal year 2007 after the program was cut by 83 percent last year. I am very disappointed that this program has been eliminated in the President's budget, and I will do everything in my power to restore funding to this program.

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 tragic. 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 experienced the tragic loss of their son, but they were 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 the ADAM Act and the Rural AED program at their full levels. 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 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.

Every 2 minutes, someone in America falls into sudden cardiac arrest. By improving access to 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. Ninety-five sudden deaths from cardiac arrest occur each day in Wisconsin alone. Overall, heart disease kills more Americans than AIDS, cancer and diabetes 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 for victims of cardiac arrest. 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 163,221 Americans experience out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrests each year. Immediate CPR and early defibrillation using an automated external defibrillator, 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. This program is entering its second year of helping rural communities purchase defibrillators and train first responders, and 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.

If we give people in rural communities a chance, they may be able to reverse a cardiac arrest before it takes another life. Unfortunately, the President zeroed out the funding for the Rural AED program in fiscal year 2007 after the program was cut by 83 percent last year. I am very disappointed that this program has been eliminated in the President's budget, and I will do everything in my power to restore funding to this program.

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 tragic. 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 experienced the tragic loss of their son, but they were 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 the ADAM Act and the Rural AED program at their full levels. 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.

I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. I am very pleased to join the Senator from North Dakota in the pay-go amendment, which I understand he will be offering soon.

There is no Senator more dedicated to a fiscally responsible Federal budget and to restoring sound budget rules than Senator Conrad. He is an acknowledged expert on the budget and the rules that govern its consideration. One might say he is the ``Robert C. Byrd'' of the budget.

You do not have to be a Kent Conrad to understand the pay-go rule. Our amendment is the same amendment one or the other of us have offered since the original pay-as-you-go rule expired a few years ago. It simply reinstates the pay-as-you-go rule that had been such an effective restraint on the fiscal appetites of Congress and the White House.

Over the past 5 years, we have seen a dramatic deterioration in the Government's ability to perform one of its most fundamental jobs, and that is balancing the Nation's fiscal books. In January of 2001, the Congressional Budget Office projected, in the 10 years thereafter, the Government would run a unified budget surplus of more than $5 trillion. But little more than 5 years later, we face immense deficits and backbreaking debt.

This must stop. Running deficits causes the Government to use the surpluses of the Social Security trust fund for other Government purposes, rather than to pay down the debt and help our Nation prepare for the coming retirement of the baby boom generation.

Every dollar we add to the Federal debt is another dollar that we are forcing our children to pay back in higher taxes or fewer Government benefits. When we choose to spend on current consumption--through appropriated accounts or mandatory spending or tax cuts--without paying for that spending, we are robbing our children of the opportunity to have their own choices.

When we spend on our wants, by cutting taxes or through Government programs, without paying for those decisions, we are saddling our children and even our grandchildren with debts they must pay from their tax dollars and their hard work. That is not right.

That is why I am joining Senator Conrad in his amendment to fully reinstate the pay-go rule. We need a strong budget process. We need to exert fiscal discipline.

When the pay-go rule was in effect, that tough fiscal discipline actually

governed the budget process. Under the current approach, it is actually the other way around: the annual budget resolution determines how much fiscal discipline we are willing to impose on ourselves.

Obviously, it is not surprising to know that simply has not worked. When Congress decides it would be nice to create a new entitlement or enact new tax cuts and then adjusts its budget rules to permit those policies, we are inviting a disastrous result. And actually that is what we have seen happen--a disastrous result in terms of the fiscal health of our country.

I have tried in the past to contrast this approach to going on a diet. If you want to lose weight, you set the number of total calories you are allowed to consume first, and then what you are supposed to do, I understand, is to make the meals fit under that cap--not the other way around.

Imagine trying to lose weight by deciding what you want to eat first and then setting a calorie limit to accommodate all of your cravings. If you want a few extra beers, fine, just dial up the limit on your calorie intake. If you want some fudge brownies, that is fine, too, just raise the calorie limit accordingly.

It may taste pretty good at the time, but it is awfully sure you will end up gaining weight, such as the Nation is racking up debt. Because this ill-advised diet is exactly how the current, mutated version of pay-go works--and we have seen the results--the results are the debt we are leaving our children and grandchildren, and that debt continues to balloon and balloon.

In the case of the budget resolution before us, Members are permitted to indulge themselves in tax cut and mandatory spending policies--that are normally restrained by pay-go--to the tune of an estimated 10-year cost of $270 billion without having to find offsetting savings.

We need to return to the wise restraints under which Congress functioned during the 1990s and which were instrumental in balancing the Federal budget. That is precisely what this amendment the Senator from North Dakota and I are offering would do.

Many of us have lived under this rule, and we know how effective it was. If this budget does nothing else, it should reinstate the old pay- go rule. If we do that, maybe we can begin to turn these annual budgets around and stop racking up these deficits and adding to the already enormous Federal debt.

I urge my colleagues to support the commonsense, time-tested pay-go amendment by my colleague from North Dakota.

Mr. President, of course, that time I used was, as I understand, to come off the budget resolution; is that correct?

I thank the Presiding Officer.

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

Mr. President, does the Senator from Maryland yield me time?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for up to 25 minutes as in morning business.

I understand I have been recognized for 25 minutes as in morning business; is that correct?

Mr. President, I thought that was the second unanimous consent. I simply asked originally for 25 minutes in morning business, and I believe that was approved.

Mr. President, when the President of the United States breaks the law, he must be held accountable. That is why today I am submitting a resolution to censure President George W. Bush.

The President authorized an illegal program to spy on American citizens on American soil, and then misled Congress and the public----

I will be introducing it at the conclusion of my remarks. I will be happy to supply the Senator with a copy of the resolution, but I do intend to introduce it at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. President, I just said I would be happy to give the Senator a copy of the resolution right now.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my time be started over again.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, when the President of the United States breaks the law, he must be held accountable. That is why today I am submitting a resolution to censure President George W. Bush. The President authorized an illegal program to spy on American citizens on American soil, and then misled the Congress and the public about the existence and the legality of that program. It is up to this body to reaffirm the rule of law by condemning the President's action.

All of us in this body took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and bear true allegiance to the same. Fulfilling that oath requires us to speak clearly and forcefully when the President violates the law. This resolution allows us to send a clear message that the President's conduct was wrong.

And we must do that. The President's actions demand a formal judgment from Congress.

At moments like this in our history, we are reminded why the Founders balanced the powers of the different branches of Government so carefully in the Constitution. At the very heart of our system of government lies the recognition that some leaders will do wrong and that others in the Government will then bear the responsibility to do right.

This President has done wrong. This body can do right by condemning his

conduct and showing the people of this Nation that his actions will not be allowed to stand unchallenged.

To date, Members of Congress have responded in very different ways to the President's conduct. Some are responding by defending his conduct, ceding him the power he claims, and even seeking to grant him expanded statutory authorization powers to make his conduct legal. While we know he is breaking the law, we do not know details of what the President has authorized or whether there is any need to change the law to allow it. Yet some want to give him carte blanche to continue his illegal conduct. To approve the President's actions now without demanding a full inquiry into this program, a detailed explanation for why the President authorized it, and accountability for his illegal actions would be irresponsible. It would be to abandon the duty of the legislative branch under our constitutional system of separation of powers while the President recklessly grabs for power and ignores the rule of law.

Others in Congress have taken important steps to check the President. Senator Specter has held hearings on the wiretapping program in the Judiciary Committee. He has even suggested that Congress may need to use the power of the purse to get some answers out of the administration. Senator Byrd has proposed that Congress establish an independent commission to investigate this program.

As we move forward, Congress will need to consider a range of possible actions, including investigations, independent commissions, legislation, or even impeachment. But at a minimum Congress should censure a President who has so plainly broken the law.

Mr. President, our Founders anticipated that these kinds of abuses would occur. Federalist Paper No. 51 speaks of the Constitution's system of checks and balances. It says:

It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices

should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But

what is government itself, but the greatest of all

reflections of human nature? If men were angels, no

government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men,

neither external nor internal controls on government would be

necessary. In framing a government which is to be

administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in

this: You must first enable the government to control the

governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

We are faced with an executive branch that places itself above the law. The Founders understood that the branches must check each other to control abuses of Government power. The President's actions are such an abuse. His actions must be checked and he should be censured.

This President exploited the climate of anxiety after September 11, 2001, both to push for overly intrusive powers in the PATRIOT Act and to take us into a war in Iraq that has been a tragic diversion from the critical fight against al-Qaida and its affiliates. In both of these instances, however, Congress gave its approval to the President's action, however mistaken the approval may have been.

Here is the difference, Mr. President: This was not the case with the illegal domestic wiretapping program authorized by the President shortly after September 11. The President violated the law, ignored the Constitution and the other two branches of Government, and disregarded the rights and freedoms upon which our country was founded. No one questions--no one questions--whether the Government should wiretap suspected terrorists. Of course we should and we can under current law. If there were a demonstrated need to change the law, of course, Congress should consider that step. But instead, the President is refusing to follow the law while offering the flimsiest of arguments to justify his misconduct. He must be held accountable for his actions.

The facts are pretty straightforward. Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA, nearly 30 years ago to ensure that as we wiretap suspected terrorists and spies, we also protect innocent Americans from unjustified Government intrusion. FISA makes it a crime to wiretap Americans on U.S. soil without the requisite warrants, and the President has ordered warrantless wiretaps of Americans on U.S. soil. So it is pretty simple. The President has broken that law and that alone is unacceptable.

But the President did much more than that. Not only did the President break the law, he also actively misled Congress and the American people about his actions and then, when the program was made public, about the legality of the NSA program. He has fundamentally violated the trust of the American people. The President's own words show just how seriously he has violated that trust.

We now know that the NSA wiretapping program began not long after September 11. Before the existence of this program was revealed, the President went out of his way, he went out of his way in several speeches to assure the public that the Government was getting court orders to wiretap Americans in the United States, something he now admits was not the case.

On April 20, 2004, for example, the President told an audience in Buffalo, ``Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretaps it requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way.''

In fact, a lot had changed. But the President wasn't upfront with the American people. Just months later, on July 14, 2004, in my own State of Wisconsin, the President said, ``Any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order. In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order.''

And then, Mr. President, last summer on June 9, 2005, the President spoke in Columbus, OH, and again insisted that his administration was abiding by the laws governing wiretaps. ``Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, a federal judge's permission to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools. And these standards are fully consistent with the Constitution of the U.S.''

Now, Mr. President, in all of these cases the President knew that he wasn't telling the complete story. But engaged in tough political battle during the Presidential campaign and later over the PATRIOT Act reauthorization, he wanted to convince the public that a system of checks and balances was in place to protect innocent people from Government snooping. He knew when he gave those reassurances that he had authorized the NSA to bypass the very system of checks and balances that he was using as a shield against criticisms of the PATRIOT Act and his administration's performance.

This conduct is unacceptable. The President has a duty to play it straight with the American people. But for political purposes, he just ignored that duty.

After a New York Times story exposed the NSA program in December of last year, the White House launched an intensive effort to mislead the American people yet again. No one would come to testify before Congress until February, but the President's surrogates held press conferences and made speeches to try to convince the public that he had acted lawfully.

Most troubling of all, the President himself participated in this disinformation campaign. In the State of the Union Address he implied that the program was necessary because otherwise, the Government would be unable to wiretap terrorists at all.

Now, Mr. President, that is simply untrue. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. You don't need a warrant to wiretap terrorists overseas, period. It is clear. You do need a warrant to wiretap Americans on American soil, and Congress passed FISA specifically to lay out the rule for these types of domestic wiretaps.

FISA created a secret court made up of judges who develop national security expertise to issue warrants for surveillance of suspected terrorists and spies. These are the judges from whom the Bush administration has obtained thousands of warrants since 9/11. They are the judges who review applications for business records orders and wiretapping authority under the PATRIOT Act. The administration has almost never had a warrant request rejected by these judges. It has used the FISA Court thousands of times, but at the same time it asserts that FISA is an ``old law'' or ``out of date'' in this age of terrorism, that it can't be complied with. Clearly the administration can

and does comply with it except when it doesn't. Then it just arbitrarily decides to go around these judges and around the law.

The administration has said that it ignored FISA because it takes too long to get a warrant under that law. But we know that in an emergency where the Attorney General believes that surveillance must begin before a court order can be obtained, FISA permits the wiretap to be executed immediately as long as the Government goes to the court within 72 hours. Now, the Attorney General has complained that the emergency provision does not give him enough flexibility; he has complained that getting a FISA application together, of getting the necessary approvals, takes too long. What the Attorney General is actually talking about, the problems he has cited, are bureaucratic barriers that the executive branch put in place. They are not mandated by Congress. They are not mandated under FISA. These were put into place by the Justice Department, the executive branch itself, and they could be removed if they wanted.

FISA permits the Attorney General to authorize unlimited warrantless electronic surveillance in the United States--unlimited--during the 15 days following a declaration of war to allow time to consider any amendments to FISA required by a wartime emergency. This is the time period that Congress specified very clearly. Yet the President thinks he is above the law. He thinks that he can just ignore that 15-day period and do this indefinitely. The President has argued that Congress gave him authority to wiretap Americans on U.S. soil without a warrant when it passed the authorization for use of military force after September 11, 2001.

That is ridiculous. Members of Congress did not pass this resolution to give the President blanket authority to order warrantless wiretaps. We all know that. Anyone in this body who tells you otherwise either was not there at the time or isn't telling the truth. We authorized the President to use military force in Afghanistan, a necessary and justified response to September 11. We did not authorize him to wiretap American citizens on American soil without going through the process that was set up nearly three decades ago precisely to facilitate the domestic surveillance of terrorists with the approval of a judge. That is why--and I have heard them do this very clearly--many Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, have come forward to question this bogus theory.

This particular claim is further undermined by congressional approval of the PATRIOT Act just a few weeks after we passed the authorization for use of military force. The PATRIOT Act made it easier for law enforcement to conduct surveillance on suspected terrorists and spies while maintaining FISA's baseline requirement of judicial approval of wiretaps of Americans in the U.S. It is also ridiculous to think that Congress would have negotiated and enacted all the changes to FISA in the PATRIOT Act if it thought it had just authorized the President to ignore FISA in the AUMF.

In addition, in the intelligence authorization bill passed in December 2001, we extended the emergency authority in FISA at the administration's request from 24 hours to 72 hours. Why did we do that? Why do that if the President has some kind of inherent power or power under the authorization of force resolution to just ignore FISA? That makes no sense at all.

The President has also said that his inherent executive power gives him the power to approve this program, but here the President of the United States is acting in direct violation of a criminal statute. That means his power is, as Justice Jackson said in the steel seizure cases a half century ago, ``at its lowest ebb.'' A letter from a group of law professors and former executive branch officials points out, ``Every time the Supreme Court has confronted a statute limiting the Commander- in-Chief's authority, it has upheld the statute.'' The Senate reports issued when FISA was enacted confirm the understanding that FISA overrode any preexisting inherent authority of the President. As a 1978 Senate Judiciary Committee report stated, FISA ``recognizes no inherent power of the President in this area.'' And ``Congress has declared that this statute, not any claimed Presidential power, controls.'' So contrary to what the President told the country in this year's State of the Union, no court has ever approved warrantless surveillance in violation of FISA.

The President's claims of inherent executive authority and his assertions that the courts have approved this type of activity are baseless. But it is one thing to make a legal argument that has no real support in the law; it is much worse to do what the President has done, which is to make misleading statements about what prior Presidents have done and what courts have approved to try to somehow make the public believe that his legal arguments are much stronger than they really are.

For example, in the State of the Union, the President argued that Federal courts have approved the use of Presidential authority that he was invoking. I asked the Attorney General about this when he came before the Judiciary Committee, and he could point me to no court--not the Supreme Court or any other court--that has considered whether, after FISA was enacted, the President nonetheless had the authority to bypass it and authorize warrantless wiretaps. Not one court. The administration's effort to find support for what it has done in snippets of other court decisions would be laughable if this issue were not so serious.

In the same speech, the President referred to other Presidents in American history who cited executive authority to order warrantless surveillance. But of course, those past Presidents--like Wilson and Roosevelt--were acting long before the Supreme Court decided in 1967 that our communications are protected by the fourth amendment, and before Congress decided in 1978 that the executive branch could no longer unilaterally decide which Americans to wiretap. I asked the Attorney General about this issue when he testified before the Judiciary Committee. And neither he nor anyone in the administration has been able to come up with a single prior example of wiretapping inside the United States since 1978 that was conducted outside FISA's authorization.

So again the President's arguments in the State of the Union were baseless, and it is unacceptable that the President of the United States would so obviously mislead the Congress and American public.

The President also has argued that periodic internal executive branch review provides an adequate check on the program. He has even characterized this periodic review as a safeguard for civil liberties. But we don't know what this check involves. And we do know that Congress explicitly rejected this idea of unilateral executive decisionmaking in this area when it passed FISA.

Finally, the President has tried to claim that informing a handful of congressional leaders, the so-called Gang of 8, somehow excuses breaking the law. Of course, several of these members said they weren't given the full story. And all of them were prohibited from discussing what they were told. So the fact that they were informed under these extraordinary circumstances does not constitute congressional oversight, and it most certainly does not constitute congressional approval of the program.

In fact, it doesn't even comply with the National Security Act, which requires the entire memberships of the House and Senate Intelligence Committee to be ``fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States.'' Nor does the latest agreement to allow a seven-member subcommittee to review the program comply with the law. Granting a minority of the committee access to information is inadequate and still does not comply with the law requiring that the full committee be kept fully informed.

In addition, we now know that some of the Gang of 8 expressed concern about the program. The administration ignored their protests. One of the eight members of Congress who has been briefed about the program, Congresswoman Jane Harman, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, has said she sees no reason why the administration cannot accomplish its goals within the law as currently written.

None of the President's arguments explains or excuses his conduct, or the

NSA's domestic spying program. Not one. It is hard to believe that the President has the audacity to claim that they do.

And perhaps that is what is most troubling here. Even more troubling than the arguments the President has made is what he relies on to make them convincing--the credibility of the Office of the President itself. He essentially argues that the American people should trust him simply because of the office he holds.

But Presidents don't serve our country by just asking for trust, they must earn that trust, and they must tell the truth.

This President hides behind flawed legal arguments, and even behind the office he holds, but he cannot hide from what he has created: nothing short of a constitutional crisis. The President has violated the law, and Congress must respond. Congress must investigate and demand answers. Congress should also determine whether current law is inadequate and address that deficiency if it is demonstrated. But before doing so, Congress should ensure that there is accountability for authorizing illegal conduct.

A formal censure by Congress is an appropriate and responsible first step to assure the public that when the President thinks he can violate the law without consequences, Congress has the will to hold him accountable. If Congress does not reaffirm the rule of law, we will create another failure of leadership, and deal another blow to the public's trust.

The President's wrongdoing demands a response. And not just a response that prevents wrongdoing in the future but a response that passes judgment on what has happened. We in the Congress bear the responsibility to check a President who has violated the law, who continues to violate the law, and who has not been held accountable for his actions.

We are hearing people say that somehow this censure resolution sends a terrible signal to the terrorists who want to do us harm. I tell you what is a terrible signal, that we are so meek in response to this terrorist threat that we are going to let the President of the United States break the law of this Nation and not do anything about it. Now that is a victory for the terrorists if we won't even stand up for our system of Government because everybody has to be afraid to mention that this President broke the law.

Passing a resolution to censure the President is a way to hold this President accountable. A resolution of censure is a time-honored means for the Congress to express the most serious disapproval possible, short of impeachment, of the Executive's conduct. It is different than passing a law to make clear that certain conduct is impermissible or to cut off funding for certain activities.

He should be censured.

The Founders anticipated abuses of Executive power by creating a balance of powers in the Constitution. Supporting and defending the Constitution, as we have taken an oath to do, requires us to preserve that balance and to have the will to act. We must meet a serious transgression by the President with a serious response. We must work, as the Founders urged in Federalist 51, to control the abuses of Government.

The Constitution looks to the Congress to right the balance of power. The American people look to us to take action, to speak out with one clear voice, against wrongdoing by the President of the United States.

To conclude, in our system of government, no one, not even the President, is above the law.

I send the resolution to the desk.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today people across my State of Wisconsin are deeply saddened by the loss of a man who dedicated so much of his time, and so much of himself, to strengthening our communities: Marty Stein.

I want to share what some other people have said about Marty's passing because I think it will give my colleagues a sense of who he was and the kind of contributions he made. Tommy Thompson, our former Governor, and the recent Secretary of Health and Human Services, said simply, ``What will we do without him?''

The executive director of Hunger Task Force, a Milwaukee-based nonprofit, said, ``We always referred to Marty as our angel. He solved the problems, opened the doors, fixed things that seemed like they would never get fixed. And he did it because he cared.''

Those words tell you what a force Marty was in the Milwaukee area and throughout the State. His dedication to serving his community was unparalleled. We will miss not only what he did but the energy he brought to his efforts and the example he set for everyone he knew.

Marty was a skilled businessman who built not one but two thriving businesses--first the successful chain of Stein drug stores, and later Stein Health Services, which included the Stein Optical stores so well known in Wisconsin.

He took those same skills he used in business, that rare drive and dedication, and used them to help community organizations to thrive. An outstanding fundraiser, he was determined to engage others in his charitable work by asking for their contributions of money or time for a good cause.

It is impossible to talk about Marty's many good works without talking about the strength of his faith. Faith fueled his humanitarian efforts, as he worked to support local organizations like the Milwaukee Jewish Home and Care Center, and as he worked on international issues like chairing an effort to bring thousands of Ethiopian Jews to Israel.

His work will live on and act as a challenge to everyone who knew him--to ask what more each of us can do to serve our communities and to dedicate ourselves to those causes as he did, with unmatched energy and with the utmost integrity.

Today my thoughts and sympathies are with the Stein family. Marty's life and work created a lasting legacy that I am proud to honor today and that will be remembered and celebrated for many years to come.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, let me say I appreciate the work of the Senators on this. Clearly what Senator Dodd did is an improvement. I, however, believe we need to do more. I don't see this as a question of tripwires. What I see this as is a question of whether certain often well-to-do individuals who work for companies, who are not themselves registered lobbyists, be able to take Members of Congress out to lunch without the Member paying his own way for dinner, and I want to offer an amendment on that. But I want to acknowledge that Senator Dodd has achieved a significant step in the right direction.

I will offer my approach to this a bit later.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has finally passed legislation to help hard-working families that have been grappling with skyrocketing energy costs for far too long. My colleagues from Maine and Rhode Island, Senators Snowe and Reed, have worked diligently to get LIHEAP legislation to the Senate floor and I thank them for their commitment. I must note, however, that the funding approved by the Senate yesterday is too little, too late. As we move forward with the appropriations process for fiscal year 2007, I will be urging my colleagues to fund the LIHEAP program at its fully authorized level so that next year my constituents don't again find themselves struggling to pay record heating bills while Congress turns a blind eye.

I would also like to respond to some of the concerns that I have heard a handful of my colleagues make during debate on whether we should increase the amount of LIHEAP funding available. A few members have spoken about the problem of earmarks and the need for responsible Government spending. I share concerns over earmarking and welcome the opportunity to work together on this issue so that we can look the public in the face and say that their tax dollars are being spent on the most meritorious projects. Increasing LIHEAP funding is not about earmarks--it is about helping our citizens with immediate and urgent needs.

Mr. President, the avian influenza, H5N1, virus has recently been detected for the first time in Nigeria. International health officials have long warned about the potential danger of avian flu spreading throughout the African continent, and it appears we are now one step closer to this danger becoming a reality.

While the threat of avian influenza is global, and needs to be addressed here in the United States, it is of particular concern in Africa. Many governments in Africa are unequipped to effectively deal with an outbreak, which requires early detection, quarantining, and culling of affected bird populations. And although there are no reports yet of humans contracting the disease in Nigeria, recent cases in Turkey and Iraq underscore the danger for people who live in close proximity to poultry, as is the case throughout much of Africa. In areas where birds, livestock, and people are in close contact, the risk of the virus mutating into a strain that can be transmitted between humans is increased. Additionally, immunocompromised individuals may be more susceptible to the disease, and it is unclear what effect avian influenza could have on populations already ravaged by HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases. Finally, the already overburdened or underdeveloped health infrastructure in much of Africa may find itself unable to cope with a pandemic.

Avian flu is an international danger to which no country in the world is immune. While much attention has been paid to the problem in Asia, I am concerned that the international community has not prepared sufficiently for an outbreak in Africa. Particularly worrisome is the amount of time it apparently took for the outbreak in Nigeria--a member of the recently formed West African Network on Avian Influenza, and presumably better prepared than many other African nations to deal with the threat of avian influenza--to be reported to international health authorities.

It is essential that the administration develop a plan for managing a wide-scale outbreak of avian influenza in Africa, as well as developing contingency plans relating to the impact that an outbreak of avian influenza may have diplomatically, economically, and security-wise in each major region of the continent. I also urge the administration to develop plans to support organizations like the African Union to develop information-sharing mechanisms and a clearinghouse of information related to initial reporting, initial impact, mitigation efforts, and management mechanisms to prevent the spread of the virus, beyond the initial efforts that have been made through

the International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza.

Additionally, the administration should identify particularly vulnerable regions or countries, and provide detailed plans for how the international community can support efforts in these regions or countries through both bilateral and multilateral mechanisms to help mitigate or alleviate the potential impact of avian flu.

Assisting the countries of Africa in preventing more widespread transmission of the deadly H5N1 virus should be a critical priority. It is in the interest of millions of the world most vulnerable populations in some of the poorest countries, and it is also in our interest that we help prepare regions like Africa to head off a humanitarian tragedy that could easily spread to our own backyards.