Floor Statements

Mr. President, I express my sincere sympathy for the millions of people affected by the devastating earthquake and tsunami that struck Southeast Asia, South Asia, and East Africa on December 26. The scale of this disaster is overwhelming, and the human losses are horrifying. Families have been shattered and whole communities lost, and because so many international tourists were in the region, virtually every part of the world--including the United States--is represented in the list of casualties.

I know the sorrow that I feel as I review the reports of devastating losses is shared by the people of Wisconsin and by all Americans. I know that we also share a sense of resolve--resolve to provide whatever assistance we can to the survivors and the affected communities, and resolve to be steadfast partners in the long-term reconstruction efforts that must follow the relief operations.

I vividly recall the powerful voices that rose up from all corners of the globe in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. I remember how they conveyed a sense of solidarity and support that gave our country comfort and affirmed the bonds that unite all of humanity, regardless of nationality, ethnicity, or religion. Now, countless American voices are also sounding loudly and clearly in that same spirit.

I am grateful for the efforts of so many around the world to come to the aid of those in need, including U.S. military personnel who are working day and night to help. Businesses and individuals from around Wisconsin have contacted my office, looking for ways that they can help. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the resolution before the Senate that expresses our sympathy and pledges our support to the victims of this catastrophe, and I pledge to continue working with my colleagues to ensure that our words continue to be matched by our actions.

Mr. President, with a recognition that this bill is imperfect, and with the firm conviction that this effort is only one step in a much broader effort needed to get this country on the right track to effectively defeat the terrorist forces that have attacked this country, I will vote in favor of the intelligence reform conference report today.

I have tremendous respect for the 9/11 Commission that made the recommendations at the heart of this legislation. Their report was not characterized by an ill-considered rush to simply act, but rather an imperative to act wisely. It was not colored by partisan biases, or tainted by self deluding rosy scenarios about where we stand as a country. I may not agree with every word in the 9/11 Commission's report, but I strongly agree with the vast majority of it, and I believe that the Commission performed a tremendous service for the American people.

Among the most detailed and thoughtful recommendations of the Commission were those focused on the urgent need for reform of America's intelligence community. By stressing unified effort, and most importantly, accountability, the Commission pointed the way toward the reforms contained in this bill.

This bill puts someone in charge of America's intelligence community--someone to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the elected representatives of the American people in

the Congress. The Director of National Intelligence will be in charge not simply via title and not only because we reorganized boxes on an organizational chart. This legislation provides real authorities to the DNI in terms of allocating resources, establishing tasking priorities, and ensuring information-sharing to unify our efforts. It is up to the Director to use the powers granted in this bill to make this community function--to make sure that the right people have the right resources and the right priorities, and that they share crucial information with their colleagues.

And I will add that it is up to the President of the United States and this Congress to ensure that the lines of authority and the clear accountability laid out in the language of this legislation come alive. We must insist on real accountability; we must accept nothing less.

The conference report also establishes, in law, the mandate for the National Counterterrorism Center to bring an integrated effort to that urgent priority. If we are ever to connect the disparate dots that can shed light on the methods, the plans, and the vulnerabilities of fluid, flexible terrorist networks that operate in the shadows, we must integrate our own efforts, not as an afterthought, but as a fundamental organizing principle.

However, I am troubled by some provisions that were added in conference that have nothing to do with reforming our intelligence network. The bill includes in section 6001 what has come to be known as the ``lone wolf'' provision. The lone wolf provision eliminates the requirement in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, that surveillance or searches be carried out only against persons suspected of being agents of foreign powers or terrorist organizations. I am very concerned about the implications of this provision for civil liberties in this country.

It is important to remember that FISA itself is an exception to traditional constitutional restraints on criminal investigations, allowing the government to gather foreign intelligence information through wiretaps and searches without having probable cause that a crime has been or is going to be committed. The courts have permitted the government to proceed with surveillance in this country under FISA's lesser standard of suspicion because the power is limited to investigations of foreign powers and their agents. This bill therefore writes out of the statute a key requirement necessary to the lawfulness of intrusive surveillance powers that may very well otherwise be unconstitutional.

By allowing searches or wiretaps under FISA of persons merely suspected of engaging in or preparing to engage in terrorism, the bill essentially eliminates the protections of the Fourth Amendment. I voted against the lone wolf bill when it passed the Senate early in this Congress. I believe there are better and more constitutional ways to deal with a situation where evidence of a connection to a foreign government or terrorist organization is not easily obtained.

Even if section 6001 survives constitutional challenge, it would mean that non-U.S. persons could have electronic surveillance and searches authorized against them using the lesser standards of FISA even though there is no conceivable foreign intelligence aspect to their case. This provision may very well result in a dramatic increase in the use of FISA warrants in situations that do not justify such extraordinary government power.

When the lone wolf provision was considered in the Senate as a stand alone bill last year, I supported an amendment by Senator Feinstein that we thought was a reasonable alternative way to make sure that FISA can be used against a lone wolf terrorist, without eliminating the important agent of a foreign power requirement. The amendment would have created a permissive presumption that if there is probable cause to believe that a non-U.S. person is engaged in or preparing to engage in international terrorism, the individual can be considered to be an agent of a foreign power even if the evidence of a connection to a foreign power is not clear. The use of a permissive presumption rather than eliminating the foreign power requirement would have maintained judicial oversight and review on a case by case basis on the question of whether the target of the surveillance is an agent of a foreign power. The permissive presumption would permit the FISA judge to decide, in a given case, if the government has gone too far in requesting a FISA warrant.

Senator Feinstein's formulation would have put some limit on the government's ability to use this new power to dramatically extend FISA's reach. If the government comes to the conclusion that an individual is truly acting on his or her own, then our criminal laws concerning when electronic surveillance and searches can be used are more than sufficient. True lone wolf terrorists can and should be investigated and prosecuted in our criminal justice system. Section 6001 allows the government to use FISA to obtain a warrant for surveillance even if it knows that the subject has no connection whatsoever with a foreign power or a terrorist organization. That is not right.

I am also very concerned about the material support, section 6601 et seq., and pre-trial detention, section 6952, provisions contained in the conference report. Neither of these provisions was considered by the Senate, or even by the Senate Judiciary Committee. While it appears that the material support provision adopted by the conference is not as broad as the provision contained in the House bill, its full implications cannot possibly be analyzed in the brief time we have to consider this bill.

The material support provision amends and expands the current crime of providing material support to terrorists or terrorist organizations. One federal court, of course, has ruled that a provision of the current statute is unconstitutional because it criminalizes First Amendment protected activities. In January, a federal judge in California ruled that a provision added by the PATRIOT Act criminalizing the provision of ``expert advice or assistance'' to a terrorist organization was vague and therefore unconstitutional. The judge found that the term ``expert advice or assistance'' could be interpreted to include unequivocally pure speech and advocacy protected by the First Amendment. The judge found that the PATRIOT Act bans all expert advice and assistance, including providing peacemaking or conflict resolution advice, and places no limitation on the type of expert advice and assistance that is banned.

The conference report attempts to cure this constitutional defect in the law. It states that the law criminalizing providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization shall not be construed to abridge rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. The conference report also allows an exception for providing personnel, training, or expert advice or assistance that is approved by the Secretary of State and the Attorney General. But I am not convinced that these provisions cure the constitutional flaws. And expanding this provision is therefore the wrong way to go.

Furthermore, as I noted earlier, the material support provision in the conference report has not been debated and analyzed in the Senate Judiciary Committee or even on the floor of the Senate when this bill was considered before the election. The 9/11 Commission strongly recommended that when determining whether to expand Federal law enforcement power, the burden is on the executive branch to show how its proposals would materially enhance security and what steps it will take to ensure the protection of civil liberties. The executive branch has not even started to meet that test here. We don't know how this new provision will work, and what problems might arise because of it. We haven't had the opportunity to consult with experts and consider amendments in the normal legislative process. Congress and the American people deserve a full debate on this issue. Inserting this provision in the conference report without that debate was a mistake.

Similarly, the pretrial detention provision was not recommended by the 9/11 Commission, and the administration has never shown how current law is inadequate. Furthermore, like the material support provision, this provision did not receive adequate consideration by the Senate. At the only hearing where this issue was raised this year, the Department of Justice could not give a single example where current

law failed and this expanded presumption of pretrial detention was needed. Current law, which allows for bail to be denied if a defendant is a flight risk or a danger to the community, is fully adequate to cover the kinds of terrorism cases where bail should not be granted. Reasonable bail is a constitutional right. I am very troubled by the expansion of the presumption that bail will be denied.

Unfortunately, this Justice Department has a record of abusing its detention powers post-9/11 and of making terrorism allegations that turn out to have no merit. It is worth noting that the crime of material support of terrorism, which has been expanded in this bill, is one of the crimes where a suspect is presumptively denied bail. In sum, as with the material support provision, the administration has not met its burden of showing how the expanded pretrial detention provision is necessary and would not impair constitutional rights and protections. It has no place in this bill.

This bill is not perfect. Over time, as the new structure begins to operate, we may find that additional changes are needed. But the conference report takes critically important steps in the right direction. I commend Senators Collins and Lieberman for working tirelessly to ensure that this legislation becomes law this year.

Mr. President, I oppose this omnibus appropriations bill. It has become something of an annual event to consider these massive, must-pass measures. Because this particular bill has come to us in the form of a conference report, we are unable to even offer an amendment to the legislation. Those who crafted this measure are, of course, fully aware that this bill is completely shielded, and as a result they were free to include numerous provisions that would certainly have generated amendments were they to come to the body in an amendable vehicle.

There are many questionable provisions, all of them safe from the scrutiny that the amendment process affords. There will be a few editorials written lamenting some of these provisions, but that will be it. Absent some extraordinary action by Congress, they will become law along with the rest of this measure.

Others will detail the billions of dollars of unauthorized, earmarked spending included in this bill. Let me just note that these questionable provisions come at a very real cost. First and foremost, by approving these provisions, Congress shirks its duty as stewards of the taxpayers' money. We have an obligation to our constituents to ensure that the money we levy in taxes is spent wisely.

Beyond that, by providing funding for these unauthorized, earmarked programs, we are diverting funds from areas that our constituents have told us are true priorities. I am deeply concerned, for example, about the level of funding provided for the National Institutes of Health, NIH. Providing an increase of less than 3 percent is not sufficient to maintain the current pace of biomedical research.

I am pleased to have supported successful recent efforts to double the NIH budget, and abruptly slowing the growth of the NIH will undermine the progress that has been made through this doubling. It is important that we provide NIH with the funding it needs to ensure that we receive the extraordinary health and economic benefits that this vital biomedical research provides.

At a time when our country is facing increases in the number of people diagnosed with serious, costly diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer's disease, heart disease and diabetes, as well as an ever- present bioterrorism threat, biomedical research needs to be a national priority, and as such it needs to be adequately funded.

Devoting billions of dollars to unauthorized special interest earmarks also means less funding for our children. Again this year, Congress and the administration have underfunded elementary and secondary education programs. As schools around our country settle in to their third year under the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, we will pass an appropriations measure that does not give states and districts the funding that we promised them in exchange for higher accountability standards. The law requires that States and districts comply with NCLB as a condition of receiving funding, yet we are not providing them the promised resources that will help them to succeed. And I am concerned that the NCLB accountability structure will sanction schools that fail to meet adequate yearly progress despite the fact that Congress is not providing these important resources.

In addition, just 1 day after the Senate and the House passed the conference report reauthorizing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, we will pass an omnibus spending bill that underfunds the fiscal year 2005 authorization level contained in that very conference report.

Again we are failing to provide the full 40 percent of special education costs promised to the States when IDEA was enacted in 1975, and, ironically, we are doing it 1 day after telling States that the IDEA conference report puts them on the path to full funding in 6 years. The IDEA reauthorization conference report authorized $12.3 billion for fiscal year 2005, and the omnibus spending bill before us contains $11.5 billion for this purpose. Thus, before the ink on the IDEA conference report is even dry, we are already breaking a promise contained in it to the tune of more than $800 million.

I regret that the Senate missed an opportunity earlier this year to make

special education spending mandatory, and I regret that the well- intentioned authorization levels in the IDEA conference report are becoming little more than an empty promise 24 hours after the Senate and the House agreed to these funding levels.

As bad as what is in this omnibus appropriations bill is what is not in it. The administration was again successful in blocking language included in the both the House bill and the committee-passed bill in the Senate that would have reversed the harmful provisions of the Department of Labor's new overtime rule. Despite repeated bipartisan opposition to this rule in both houses of Congress, the small group of Members who drafted the omnibus conference report stripped out these provisions, which would have prevented millions of workers from losing their overtime benefits under the Bush Administration's rule. I am disturbed that--for the second year in a row--an omnibus appropriations conference report was used as a vehicle to override the will of a majority of Members of both houses with respect to this harmful rule.

And, I am disappointed that the conferees chose to delete language that would have halted the administration's campaign to contract out additional Federal jobs to the private sector. Federal employees should have the right to compete for their jobs on a level playing field.

In addition, I continue to oppose the Administration's efforts to reclassify thousands of jobs that are critical to our national security as not ``inherently governmental'' in nature in order make these jobs eligible to be contracted out.

I also want to especially note that because this omnibus appropriations bill comes to us in an unamendable form, there will not be a rollcall vote on the automatic, back door Member pay raise. As my colleagues know, that issue is germane to the Treasury-Transportation Appropriations bill and thus an amendment forcing a vote on the Member pay raise can be offered to that bill without being subject to a point of order. But, because the Treasury-Transportation bill has been folded into this omnibus package, no one will be able to offer an amendment to force a vote on what will be a roughly $4,000 pay raise that is scheduled to go into effect in January.

This is not the first time the Member pay raise has been shielded in this manner. In one instance, the Treasury-Postal bill was slipped into the conference report on the Legislative Branch appropriations bill, and thus completely shielded from amendment. And during 2002, the Senate did not consider the Treasury-Postal bill at all.

This makes getting a vote on the annual congressional pay raise a haphazard affair at best. And it should not be that way. No one should have to force a debate and public vote on the pay raise. On the contrary, Congress should have to act if it decides to award itself a hike in pay. This process of pay raises without accountability must end. I have introduced legislation to do just that, but until that legislation is enacted, Senate leadership should not shield the Treasury-Transportation appropriations bill from amendments.

Finally, let me join others in expressing my concern about inclusion of a provision in this bill that could reduce access to the full spectrum of reproductive health services. This provision is far too controversial to be shoved into a must-pass Government spending bill, especially when the committee with jurisdiction did not have a chance to consider it and the Senate did not have a chance to debate it.

Mr. President, the appropriations process needs reform. I have been pleased to join the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici in advocating biennial budgeting, and certainly we need to seriously consider that reform. I have also joined with my good friend, the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, in advocating a change to Senate rules that would permit points of order to be raised against many of these extraneous, unauthorized earmarks, and this body should seriously consider that reform as well.

The Senate needs to act on those reforms and others before we consider another one of these giant, must-pass omnibus appropriations bills.

Mr. President, as the 108th Congress draws to a close, it is time to reflect on a number of opportunities to support working families that this Congress missed.

American workers are the backbone of our economy. They have built this country, brick by brick and industry by industry. Too many of them have seen their factories closed and their jobs shipped overseas due to bad tax policy and dismal trade agreements. As the Senate meets today, families around our country are struggling to make ends meet in a sluggish economy. This Congress has missed opportunity after opportunity to support these families.

As consumer and health care prices continue to rise and families must make difficult decisions about what to buy and what to go without, the 108th Congress will adjourn without even considering an increase in the Federal minimum wage. Congress last voted to increase the minimum wage 8 years ago, to the current level of $5.15. The Congressional Research Service notes that the Federal minimum wage would have had to have been raised to $8.49 in February of this year to equal the purchasing power that it had in February of 1968. Increases in the minimum wage have not kept up with inflation or with rising consumer prices, and workers earning minimum wage are struggling to make ends meet, often working two or more jobs. And many of these jobs do not provide basic benefits such as health insurance and paid sick leave. To that end, I am proud to be a cosponsor of legislation introduced by the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) that would require certain employers to provide paid sick leave benefits, and I look forward to continuing to support this and other legislation to support working families when the 109th Congress convenes next year.

This Congress did little to help workers who are scraping by and who, too often, have to choose between their jobs and their families. And for those laid-off workers who have been unable to find family- supporting employment in these tough economic times, this Congress has done even less.

For the second year in a row, Members of Congress will go home for the holidays without acting on legislation to extend the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Program. Many unemployed workers who are actively seeking employment have simply been unable to find jobs, and are relying on unemployment benefits and related programs to support themselves and their families. I regret that, despite the support of a bipartisan majority in the Senate for extending these important benefits, a minority of members have used Senate budget rules to block passage of this important extension. And I am stunned that, despite bipartisan support for extending these important benefits in both the Senate and the House, Congress will adjourn for the year without sending an extension to the President.

In addition, this Congress has built upon the regrettable record of the 107th Congress with respect to undermining basic worker protections. Members of the House and of the Senate have gone on record a total of six times in opposition to the Bush administration's overtime rule. This rule, which will rob millions of hard-working Americans of the overtime pay that they deserve, went into effect on August 23, despite bipartisan opposition in Congress. And for the third time, the administration has saved this ill-conceived rule by issuing a veto threat against legislation containing a provision to block that rule. I commend the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) for his leadership on this issue, and I will continue to support efforts to roll back the harmful provisions of this rule.

This Congress also missed a number of opportunities to ensure that good-paying jobs stay in this country. The bill that was recently enacted in response to a World Trade Organization ruling against the foreign sales corporation and extraterritorial income provisions in our tax code presented Congress with an opportunity to restructure our tax code in a way that supports domestic manufacturers and their employees. Sadly, while the measure did provide some help to domestic manufacturers, the bill that was signed into law missed this opportunity in many respects. Congress should act at the next opportunity to close down the tax provisions in this law that actually provide incentives for corporations to move facilities overseas.

I was also disappointed that the final Omnibus bill that the Senate is expected to take up soon did not include provisions approved by the Senate responding to the disturbing trend of the outsourcing of American jobs. These provisions would have prohibited Federal funding from being used to support the outsourcing of goods and services contracts that are entered into by the Federal Government, or by the States if those contracts are being supported by Federal dollars. With this bill, Congress could have supported American workers by ensuring that taxpayer money is not used to encourage companies to relocate American jobs. Because of the deletion of this outsourcing provision, we missed an opportunity for the Federal Government to set a strong example of buying its goods and services from American companies that use American workers.

All told, the 108th Congress provided little support, and too much harm, to working families, and the examples that I have cited are just the tip of the iceberg of missed opportunities in this area. Congress can and should do more to ensure that workers and their families have a decent standard of living, including access to affordable health care, child care, and housing. We should also do more to strengthen job training and education, including expanding access to higher education.

I fervently hope that the 109th Congress will reject the antiworker tone of the past two Congresses and will make every effort to support the working men and women and their families who we have been elected to represent. I intend to continue to work hard to ensure that their voices are heard here in the Senate.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong opposition to efforts to push through a provision in this bill normalizing trade relations with Laos.

Let me first say I thoroughly enjoy my work with both managers of the bill. Senator Baucus and I agree on so many issues. We have had our disagreements on trade issues, but I do respect his views and arguments. Of course, I very much respect the Senator from Iowa. I have the pleasure of serving with him on a number of committees. I respectfully disagree with him on this particular aspect of the bill having to do with Laos.

I am deeply disappointed that a decision was made to insert this provision into the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2004 conference report. The Senator from Montana suggested that those of us who are opposed to this provision simply believe that Laos could do better. I am afraid it is a lot more serious than Laos needing to do a little bit better on human rights.

First, let there be no misunderstanding that this bill would sail through the Senate if this provision on Laos was not included. However, I cannot support upgrading Laos's trading status as long as the human rights situation in that country remains so disturbing. I am not prepared to simply let this bill pass without at least some debate on this important matter.

This is the wrong time to reward the Government of Laos with normal trade relations. Reports emerging from Laos continue to demonstrate that human right conditions in Laos remain appalling. It is not a question of simply doing a little better, it is appalling. Despite the Lao Government's denials, human rights organizations, the U.S. Government, and my constituents and various news agencies have all documented the Lao Government's blatant disregard for human rights.

I have tried to closely monitor the human rights situation in Laos as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on East Asia and Pacific Affairs, and also as a Senator representing over 35,000 Hmong people in Wisconsin. Many of these people fled Laos following the end of the Vietnam war. Quite a number of the Hmong provided courageous assistance to the CIA during the Vietnam war, at great risk to themselves and their families. They helped rescue American pilots and hold off North Vietnamese troops.

Especially at a time like this, I think we can all agree that we owe them a debt of gratitude, and we owe them better than simply rewarding normal trade relations to a government that has badly mistreated them.

The Senator from Montana indicated this provision was an indication that it is time to put the legacy of the Vietnam war behind us. When it comes to the situation on the ground in Laos, the tragic legacy of the Vietnam war is very much alive for families of people who helped us during that very difficult conflict. So the legacy of Vietnam is not over when it comes to the treatment of the Lao Hmong people in Laos.

I am regularly contacted by constituents concerned about their friends and families in Laos. Again and again, my office encounters reports of atrocities committed against the Hmong in Laos and other deplorable practices by the Lao Government. These reports, combined with the Lao Government's absolute refusal to investigate allegations or to permit independent monitoring, lead me to believe it is not in our country's national interest to adopt normal trade relations with the Lao Government.

The United States has an obligation to the Hmong people, and I strongly believe that we have a moral interest in reducing human suffering and protecting human rights abroad. We cannot ignore these allegations of atrocities in Laos. Granting NTR is not appropriate at this time. In fact, I do recognize, as the Senator from Montana pointed out, that there are only a few countries that do not have NTR status. But that does not mean Laos deserves it any more than North Korea or perhaps Cuba. In fact, I have not supported the granting of NTR to some countries that have it now, such as China. In fact, I think the normal trade agreement with China is the biggest reason the State of Wisconsin has lost up to 80,000 manufacturing jobs since the middle of the year 2000.

You can call NTR normal, but, in fact, that was a semantic change from MFN, most-favored-nation treatment. It was a semantic change to try to make it easier to get these deals through. The fact is, normal trade relations with another country is not always right. Sometimes it is in our own interest in terms of protecting our jobs, and sometimes because of the outrageous human rights records that some countries have, and Laos, in my view, is certainly one of those countries.

I know many of my colleagues have provisions in this bill they want passed, and I want the body to know, Mr. President, that I have repeatedly asked that we simply strip out this one contentious provision and pass the rest of the bill, and I am prepared to do that again. I heard the resuscitation of some of the other meritorious aspects of this bill, and I respect that. I am not sure I agree with every piece of the bill, but I do recognize much of it is good. My goal here is not to kill the

whole bill. I simply want this item removed.

At some point, this body has to come to grips with the fact that we tend to shove major policy decisions into larger bills without any real debate and discussion and without the American people having access to what their representatives are doing, thinking, or saying about some of these items. Somehow this has to change.

I also realize the 108th Congress is drawing to a close, and many of us are already looking to head home to our families and constituents. But I cannot, in good conscience, stand by and say nothing against a provision that conflicts so fundamentally with our country's dedication to human rights, to democracy, and to fundamental decency.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing cloture. I reserve the remainder of my time.

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

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

Reserving the right to object.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I will not object to these remarks, but subsequent to that we will begin the postcloture discussion of the issue before the Senate.

Madam President, I rise today to express my strong opposition to efforts to push through a provision normalizing trade relations with Laos.

First, let me thank my senior colleague, Senator Kohl. I enjoy working with him on so many issues, from our dairy industry in Wisconsin, to our excellent National Guard. But I am particularly proud he and I have been able to cooperate and work so hard with regard to the Hmong people living in Wisconsin and the concerns they have regarding issues not only concerning their own lives in Wisconsin but also the issues involving their families and their relatives in places such as Laos. I thank the Senator for all the work we have done together on this issue, and we will continue this battle to make sure there is accountability with regard to the human rights record of the Government of Laos, which is not a good record.

It is for this reason I am deeply disappointed the decision was made to insert this provision in the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2004 conference report. Let's again remember--and Senator Kohl pointed this out--so there is no misunderstanding, this bill would sail through the Senate if this provision on Laos was not included. Senator Kohl and I are not trying to block the larger legislation. However, I cannot support upgrading Laos's trading status as long as the human rights situation in that country remains so disturbing, and I am not prepared to let this bill pass without at least some further debate on this important matter.

As Senator Kohl just said, this is the wrong time to reward the Government of Laos with normal trade relations. Reports emerging from Laos continue to demonstrate that human rights conditions in Laos remain appalling. Despite the Lao Government's denials, human rights organizations, the U.S. Government, my constituents, and various news agencies have all documented the Lao Government's blatant disregard for human rights.

I have tried to carefully and closely monitor the human rights situation in Laos as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, and as a representative of over 35,000 Hmong in Wisconsin, many of whom fled Laos following the end of the Vietnam war.

Just like Senator Kohl, I am regularly contacted by constituents concerned about their friends and family in Laos. Again and again, my office encounters reports of atrocities committed against the Hmong in Laos and other deplorable practices by the Lao Government. These reports, combined with the Lao Government's absolute refusal to investigate allegations or to permit independent monitoring, lead me to believe it is not in our country's national interest to adopt normal trade relations with the Lao Government at this time.

The State Department has documented these abuses through a series of reports, including their Human Rights Report, Trafficking in Persons Report, and Religious Freedom Report. In their Country Report for Human Rights Practices for 2003, the State Department reported the Lao Government's ``human rights record remained poor, and it continued to commit serious abuses.'' As described by the report, the abuse of detainees and prisoners, inhumane prison conditions, arbitrary arrests, detention and surveillance by police, a corrupt judiciary, and restrictions on freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and association are just some of the conditions that Laotians face.

Trafficking in women and children for prostitution and forced labor in

Laos is also a serious problem. The State Department's 2004 Trafficking in Persons Report placed Laos in their tier 2 watchlist which they said reflected the ``lack of evidence of increasing Lao Government efforts to prosecute traffickers and to provide adequate protection for victims.'' It also stated that some local government officials ``likely profit from trafficking.''

The State Department's International Religious Freedom Report for 2004 describes restrictions on freedom of religion, stating that while the country's constitution allows for freedom of religion, the Lao Government actually ``restricts this right in practice.'' The report states that local officials were reported to pressure Christians to ``renounce their faith on threat of arrest or forceful eviction from their villages. There were also several instances of persons detained or arrested for their religious faith.''

The report goes on:

The absence of rule of law has created an atmosphere in

which authorities may act with impunity against persons

regarded as threats to social order. Persons arrested for

their religious activities have been charged with exaggerated

security or other criminal offenses. Persons detained may be

held for lengthy periods without trial. Court judges, not

juries, decide guilt or innocence in court cases, and an

accused person's defense rights are limited. A person

arrested or convicted for religious offenses has little

protection under the law. All religious groups, including

Buddhists, practice their faith in an atmosphere in which

application of the law is arbitrary. Certain actions

interpreted by officials as threatening may bring harsh

punishment. Religious practice is ``free only if

practitioners stay within tacitly understood guidelines of

what is acceptable to the government and the LPRP . . .''

--The Lao Republic Revolutionary Party, the country's ruling party.

A particular concern to my constituents and to me is the steady flow of reports of atrocities committed against the Hmong in Laos. My office is regularly bombarded with reports of murders, rape, and starvation of the Hmong in Laos. We cannot verify each of these claims, but the stream of videos, photographs, eyewitness reports, and articles is deeply disturbing. These allegations cannot be dismissed outright, as the Lao Government simply does again and again, denying the Hmong's very existence in the jungles of Laos. My constituents and the constituents of many Members of Congress care deeply about the well- being of their friends and families.

It is not just our constituents and Members of Congress who are concerned. Patricia Haslach, our U.S. Ambassador to Laos, stated in her nomination hearing on April 22, 2004, that her first priority was to press the Lao Government to respect the rights of ethnic groups, especially the Hmong population. The former Ambassador to Laos, Ambassador Douglas Hartwick, also made this a priority in his dealings with the Government of Laos and recognized the need for greater transparency and reform.

As Senator Kohl pointed out, and as I reiterate, let us not forget the obligation the United States has to the Hmong. During the Vietnam War, the Central Intelligence Agency recruited, trained and armed approximately 60,000 Hmong to fight the Vietcong in a secret war. They fought with the CIA to rescue downed American pilots, to thwart supply lines along the Ho Chi Minh trail and to hold off North Vietnamese troops. Following the ascendancy of the communist Pathet Laos regime in 1975 in Laos, the Lao government cracked down on its perceived political opponents, including the U.S.-trained Hmong guerilla fighters. Lao and Vietnamese troops crushed nearly all remnants of the Hmong army. Tens of thousands of Laotians, including the Hmong, died while attempting to flee the Lao communist regime, and many others perished in reeducation and labor camps. Hundreds of thousands of people fled to Thailand, and between 1975 and 1998, nearly 130,000 Hmong refugees were admitted to the United States.

The Hmong's relationship with the CIA was not acknowledged by the U.S. until 1994 when the former CIA Director William Colby told Congress of the Hmong's cooperation with the CIA. At that hearing, he stated that the Hmong contribution was ``substantial and at great sacrifice.'' He further stated:

Many of the Hmong who bore the burden of that effort did so

in hopes of a better life for their families and children,

only to see them flee their homes in fear of their enemies to

become dependent refugees in foreign lands . . .

The largest Hmong communities are now in Wisconsin, Minnesota, California and the State of the Presiding officer, North Carolina. There are approximately 280,000 Hmong nationwide. My State of Wisconsin is home to the third largest Hmong community in the United States, most of whom came to this country from Laos as refugees after the Vietnam War. I am proud of the Hmong veterans and their families who sacrificed so much during the Vietnam War.

The Hmong people have made important contributions to Wisconsin and this Nation. They have brought new traditions and new perspectives, which have enriched the cultural life of my State and many others. I have consistently admired their passion and commitment to tackling a host of difficult issues confronting their community in the United States, Laos and in Thailand. They have endured tremendous hardship, even in the United States, as they have adjusted to an entirely new way of life here. I admire their strength and perseverance. In December 2003, the United States Government announced the creation of a new resettlement program of approximately 15,000 Hmong-Lao, who were living at a temple named Wat Tham Krabok in Thailand. They have already begun to resettle in the United States, and some have come to Wisconsin, which has a proud tradition of welcoming refugee populations.

However, while most fled Laos, it appears that remnants of former Hmong insurgent groups and their families, who once fought with the CIA and the Royal Lao government, remain in remote areas of Laos. The Lao leadership refuses to acknowledge that these groups exist. In a speech on January 27, 2004, then-U.S. Ambassador to Laos Hartwick stated that Laos needs to make progress in human rights and should find a humanitarian solution to the people still hiding in Laos' jungles. He actually stated:

Remnants of former Hmong insurgent groups who once fought

on the side of the Royal Lao Government some 27 years ago,

still hide deep in the Lao forest, afraid or unwilling to

come out. The Lao leadership is unwilling to acknowledge

publicly that these groups exist, nor to explain in detail to

the international community the amnesty policy Laos has had

in place for years to encourage peaceful resettlement. Much

more needs to be done. Only improved cooperation and dialogue

among the Lao authorities, the forest people leaders, and

those outside of Lao borders who encourage this standoff can

resolve this tragic situation that continues to claim

innocent lives and fuel bilateral tensions . . . My

government and the international community stand ready to

assist in resolving this complicated issue if requested by

the concerned parties.

An article in Time Asia from September 20, 2004 reiterated that thousands of Hmong ``remain trapped deep inside the mountains, playing a deadly game of cat and mouse with the government.

Recently, my constituents have informed me that attacks have only escalated against the Hmong in the jungles by Laotian military forces. I want to highlight some of the examples of these disturbing reports.

Amnesty International in October 2003 reported that the Lao Government was using ``starvation as a weapon of war.'' They reported that the Lao military had surrounded several rebel groups and their families and was preventing them from foraging for food they need to survive. Amnesty International stated that they were gravely concerned by the ``sharply deteriorating situation of thousands of family members of ethnic minority groups, predominantly Hmong, involved in an armed conflict with the Lao military in jungle areas of the country.''

Following this report, I wrote a letter with other Senators to the Ambassador of Laos, bringing his attention to the Amnesty International report and asking the government to investigate the treatment of Hmong in the jungles of Laos, and to permit international monitors and humanitarian relief agencies to provide food and medical supplies. The Lao Ambassador dismissed the Amnesty report outright, and the Lao Government refused to investigate the claims.

In a Time Asia article from May 5, 2003, journalist Andrew Perrin wrote of his journey to visit a group of Hmong deep within the jungles in northern

Laos and spoke of the Hmong being hunted down and trapped by Lao military forces. He wrote this ``ragtag army with wailing families in tow'' was ``completely surrounded by the Lao government troops that hunt them.'' He goes on, ``What is the crime this ragged bunch has committed? It is simply that they are Hmong, mostly the children, grandchildren or even great-grandchildren of fighters who in the 1960s sided with the U.S. to fight communism in Laos during the Vietnam War . . . The communist Pathet Lao movement . . . has never forgotten the Hmong's complicity with the Americans.''

In another article from Time Asia on June 30, 2003, Andrew Perrin again highlighted the plight of the Hmong, stating, ``In Laos, no political dissent has been allowed in 28 years, nor any right of assembly. Scores of political prisoners and youth have been detained for years in dark cells without trial; many have been tortured. Christians are persecuted, told to denounce their faith under threat of imprisonment'' and Hmong women and children are ``trapped in the mountains, starving, shot at and dying in droves.'' He continued, ``Most of this brutality passes unnoticed or uncommented upon by Western governments, because Laos does not register on their radar.''

Well, it registers on my radar and the radar of my constituents. However, it appears that this brutality has gone unnoticed by some members of Congress who wish to move forward on normal trade relations with Laos. Do these reports not give some of my colleagues any hesitation about granting normal trade relations to Laos at this time?

Also in June 2003, in a highly publicized case, the Lao government arrested a Hmong-American and two European journalists for visiting Hmong in restricted areas of Laos. According to reports, they received a 15-year prison sentence following a two hour trial, demonstrating the flawed judicial process in Laos. After intense diplomatic pressure, they were released. According to an AFP report, one of the journalists stated, ``Everything was decided in advance. It was a total mockery of justice, a parody . . . At one point we had black hoods on our heads and were handcuffed . . . They said we were carrying drugs and weapons, they were all lies.'' However, the Lao citizens apprehended with the three foreigners were not so lucky. They remain in jail, having been sentenced to between 12 and 20 years. News reports indicated that they were tortured while in detention.

Even the United Nations has been unsuccessful in getting answers from the Lao Government regarding human rights violations in Laos.

In August 2003, the United Nations Committee to Eliminate Racial Discrimination strongly criticized the Lao People's Democratic Republic and expressed its grave concerns regarding reports of human rights violations, including brutalities inflicted on the Hmong. The committee ``expressed its grave concern at the information it had received of serious and repeated human rights violations in that country; was extremely disturbed to learn that some members of the Hmong minority had been subjected to severe brutalities; deplored the measures taken by the Lao authorities to prevent the reporting of any information concerning the situation of the Hmong people . . .'' The committee ``urged the state party to halt immediately acts of violence against the Hmong population.''

In March 2004, an Amnesty International reported that large numbers of ethnic Hmong rebels and their families had emerged from jungles of Laos and surrendered to authorities in at least two areas of the country. The U.S. State Department confirmed these reports, believing that anywhere from 350 to 700 Hmong surrendered to Lao authorities and were participating in a Lao amnesty program. However, the Lao government has denied the existence of an amnesty program. Furthermore, some of my 26 constituents have raised fears that these Hmong did not actually surrender, but were captured and in some cases summarily executed. Several colleagues and I urged the administration to pursue increased international access to monitor this issue under United Nations auspices. In addition, we urged the State Department to investigate the allegations and gain access to the Hmong emerging from the jungles.

Following these reports, in March 2004, I contacted the U.S. Ambassador to the UN with other members of Congress, asking for his assistance in urging the United Nations to send a representative or fact-finding 27 mission to Laos to monitor the treatment of the Hmong. In addition, I also wrote Secretary Powell with other members of Congress to investigate reports of atrocities and to take further action to protect the Hmong.

In a letter of response, Ambassador Negroponte informed my office that both the Embassy and the United Nations Development Programme-- UNDP--continue to urge the Government of Laos to address this humanitarian issue in a peaceful and transparent manner, and have asked the Lao government to provide access to the areas where these people are seeking assistance.

It seems that no access was granted. In addition, in my response to Secretary Powell's letter, the U.S. State Department informed me that they too shared our concern about the treatment of Hmong living in remote areas and that they were seeking access to these people in order to learn about their status firsthand. Furthermore, the State Department informed us that Secretary Powell wrote to Lao Foreign Minister Somsavat, requesting that the Lao government allow the U.S. embassy and UN or other international organization 29 personnel access to these groups. The Foreign Minister never wrote Powell back. The Foreign Minister never even responded to our Secretary of State at all. Now Congress wants to grant normal trade relations to Laos? Why would we reward the misbehavior and human rights abuses of this regime?

Most recently, in September 2004, Amnesty International, CNN and other news sources reported on a recently released video, which documented the murder of five Hmong teenagers in Laos, allegedly by Lao military forces. Amnesty called these attacks war crimes. The children aged between 13 and 16, were murdered while foraging for food near their camp in Laos in May 2004. According to the reports, the 4 girls were raped prior to being killed. Not surprisingly, the Lao government initially dismissed the allegations, calling the tape a fabrication. After intense pressure by the United States State Department to launch an investigation, the Lao government stated that they undertook an investigation and were not able to find any evidence of a confrontation between the Lao military and these Hmong teenagers. But they have refused to make their report on the incident public.

Mr. President, Michael Vang of California and Houa Ly of Wisconsin, two United States citizens, were last seen near the border between Laos and Thailand in April 1999. We do not know what fate they met in Laos. Joint U.S.-Lao investigations were unable to find them. The Lao government needs to make greater efforts at finding these two men.

While we in Congress cannot verify every allegation, the information we receive from journalists, human rights organizations and our constituents is incredibly disturbing and cannot be disregarded. We just do not have enough information. But, the Lao government does not help us find the truth by restricting the international community from getting any more information.

Despite all of the Lao government's stonewalling of our inquiries and the flood of reports of human rights violations by the Lao government, this Congress is now about to grant normal trade relations to Laos. Why now? Why do we choose to reward this oppressive and brutal government when they have not adequately responded to our concerns? When the Foreign Minister of Laos has not even responded to Secretary Powell's letter to his government, requesting more information? If these allegations are untrue, as they claim, then why does the Lao government not allow international monitors into the areas where the Hmong are living?

But our concerns go unheeded, and we continue to be confronted with the most horrific accusations about conditions in Laos with no way to respond. We should not be giving Laos NTR, when they refuse to open to us in meaningful ways.

The Lao government must assure the international community that they are

attempting to address the problem of these men and women and children in the jungles of Laos through a humanitarian solution. The Lao government must allow international humanitarian organizations to have access to areas in which Hmong and other ethnic minorities have resettled, to allow independent monitoring of prison conditions, and to release prisoners who have been arbitrarily arrested because of their political or religious beliefs.

The U.S. has an obligation to the Hmong people, and I strongly believe that we have a moral interest in reducing human suffering and protecting human rights abroad. We cannot ignore these allegations of atrocities in Laos. Granting NTR is not appropriate at this time. I urge my colleagues to join me in insisting that the conference report before us not be used as a Trojan horse to sneak through a provision that conflicts so fundamentally with our country's dedication to human rights, to democracy, and to fundamental decency.

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

Reserving the right to object, I certainly will not object, and I look forward to hearing the remarks of my colleague, the Senator from Oklahoma, whom I have enjoyed serving with very much, especially on the Budget Committee, and simply indicate to the Senate that I intend after this to get back to the business of debating the pending issue. But with that, I do not object.

Again, I commend the Senator on his wonderful service to this body.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I would like to take a minute to explain or review where we are procedurally. The Senate has voted for cloture on the miscellaneous trade bill, including the Laos NTR issue. Under rule XXII, 30 hours of debate is available postcloture for further debate on the conference report.

I would like to ask how much time remains available for debate on the miscellaneous trade bill?

Mr. President, how much time have we consumed of the 30 hours?

Mr. President, we apparently have a little over 25 hours remaining of the 30-hour period. I have with me a number of State Department and international reports from which I would at some point like to read. They describe further some of the horrific human rights abuses that have been perpetrated by the Lao Government. Senators Coleman, Kohl, Dayton, and I have drafted a resolution condemning these abuses and urging the Lao Government to allow international access to vulnerable populations.

I don't want to shut this place down, but this is a very important issue, and it is my intention to remain on the floor and to prevent us from transacting any business unrelated to the conference report before us until we reach agreement to pass this important resolution. I realize I do not have the votes to block NTR from passing, but I cannot stand by and let that pass without insisting the Senate take strong action noting and condemning the Lao Government's actions.

I hope we can work things out quickly, and I think we can. I appreciate the support and hard work of my colleagues, particularly Senators Kohl and Coleman, who are working hard to get this resolution through.

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

Mr. President, in a few minutes Senator Coleman will offer a resolution. I join Senators Coleman, Kohl, and Dayton in supporting this resolution. By taking this up and passing it at this time, we signal that congressional concern about the deplorable human rights situation in Laos will be intense and ongoing.

As I have discussed today, I hear regular reports from constituents distraught about the conditions faced by their relatives in Laos. This is especially wrenching--and this is the point we have been trying to make all day--when we remember that the Hmong communities reportedly targeted for abuse are the same communities that worked side by side with U.S. forces during the Vietnam war. We simply cannot ignore the dismal human rights situation in Laos and be the country and the people we wish to be.

Just a word on the language of the resolution which Senator Coleman will describe in a moment. This resolution expresses the Senate's hope--hope--that a more open society will develop in Laos in the wake of the extension of NTR. Certainly this is my hope, although I, frankly, really see no reason to believe it will happen.

But the reality is that Laos will get NTR. The votes are there, and while I may disagree with the wisdom of colleagues taking that step, we, of course, all do hope for change in Laos--a greater respect for basic human rights, an end to repression aimed at ethnic minorities, such as the Hmong, and religious minorities, such as the Christian community, and for access to vulnerable populations.

I appreciate the efforts of my colleagues who join me in sponsoring this resolution and the efforts of the leadership on both sides, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and the Finance Committee.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I want to pay tribute to Senator Bob Graham, a man who has served in the U.S. Senate with great distinction for the last 18 years. The people of Florida have been fortunate to be represented by a man who is as thoughtful, as tough- minded and as independent as Bob Graham.

When I first came to the Senate, I was proud to work with Senator Graham to bring the deficit under control. Senator Graham was a leader for fiscal responsibility in the Senate, and he helped to focus our efforts to cut wasteful spending and institute budget reforms that brought the deficit under control, and ultimately created a budget surplus. His leadership will certainly be missed in this area in the next Congress, as we must come to terms with the largest deficit in our Nation's history.

Senator Graham was also a voice for fiscal sanity on the Finance Committee, a committee that in recent years has too often promoted policies that have deepened our fiscal problems. It isn't easy to go against your colleagues, whether in a committee or in a caucus, to stand up for what you believe is right. But that's exactly what Bob Graham has done throughout his time in the Senate, and I greatly admire him for it.

His independence has also extended to his work in the fight against terrorism, where he has been an unyielding voice for a stronger, more focused war on terror, and I thank him for his outspoken leadership on this critically important issue.

Here in the Senate, we will miss Bob Graham's thoughtful leadership, his unfailing civility, and his unstinting friendship. I thank him for his service to the State of Florida and to this country, and wish him all the best in his retirement.

don nickles

Mr. President, I am pleased to pay tribute to Senator Tom Daschle, who has served South Dakota, and the Senate, with dignity and devotion during his tenure in this body.

I am proud to have worked with him on a wide range of issues over the years, but perhaps most of all I thank him for his work and leadership to reform the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This is a fight that will go forward in the next Congress, where we will build on Senator Daschle's hard work and commitment to this important issue.

I also want to take a moment to recognize Senator Daschle's leadership, as both majority and minority leader, here in the Senate. He has led the Democratic caucus, and the Senate as a whole, through a time of great change and many difficult challenges: through a closely divided Senate,

through the tragedy of 9/11, and through the anthrax attack on the Senate, which so personally affected both of our offices. Through all of this, Senator Daschle has inspired us with his dedication and ability to work through tough problems, to guide the policies of our party, and to provide steady leadership when we needed it most.

Finally, I also want to extend my thanks to many of Senator Daschle's staff, who were especially helpful to my office over the past 12 years, and in particular, were so thoughtful and generous with their time in the wake of the anthrax attack on our offices. It is often the case that a Senator's staff reflect the personality of the Senator for whom they work, and I believe that is certainly the case with Senator Daschle and his staff.

I thank Tom Daschle for his leadership and his service to South Dakota and our country, and I wish him all the best as he moves on to begin a new chapter in his distinguished career.

peter fitzgerald

Mr. President, today I take a moment to recognize the contributions that Senator Peter Fitzgerald has made to this Senate, to the State of Illinois, and to the Nation.

As a fellow Midwesterner, I have always appreciated Senator Fitzgerald's honest and fair-minded approach to the issues. From the moment he arrived here in the Senate, it was clear that he would keep his own counsel, doing what he thought was best for the people Illinois without regard to powerful interests on either side of the aisle.

Above all else, I appreciate Senator Fitzgerald's unfailing commitment to reforming our campaign finance system. He was among that steadfast group of Republican senators who stood firm in their support of the McCain-Feingold bill, despite enormous pressure to do otherwise. His support of our bill took a great deal of personal and political courage, and it is something that I truly admire, and for which I will always been grateful.

As he moves on from the Senate, Senator Fitzgerald can be assured that his friends and colleagues here will long remember the contributions he made, and the dignity with which he served. I wish him all the best as he moves on to a new phase of his career.

don nickles

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

Mr. President, are we in morning business?

Mr. President, on Tuesday the President announced the nomination of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to be the next U.S. Secretary of State.

I admire Dr. Rice's obvious intellectual gifts and her communication skills. I also believe that the President has the right to appoint Cabinet officers who reflect his ideology and his perspective. Barring serious concerns about a nominee's qualifications or ethical record, and in keeping with Senate practices and precedents, my inclination is to give the President substantial deference in his Cabinet choices.

But I am deeply troubled by the signal that this nomination appears to send--a signal suggesting that the modest moderating influence of the State Department over the last 4 years will disappear, and that the next 4 years will be guided even more closely by the voices that shouted loudest in the first term, and that led our country into seriously flawed foreign policies. Our country cannot afford to continue down the foreign policy path that was forged during the first term of the Bush administration.

Over the past 4 years, we have witnessed the greatest loss of a very valuable type of American power in our history: our power to lead, to persuade and to inspire. As Joseph Nye has pointed out, this power will not convert the extremists who oppose us no

matter what. Those people must be eliminated, pure, and simple. But it can thwart their plans, by denying them new recruits, undermining their appeal and their message, and unifying, rather than dividing, Americans and the rest of the international community. Rather than bolstering this asset, which has helped to make us the most powerful country on earth, we have squandered it.

In March, the Pew Research Center found that one year after the start of the war in Iraq, ``discontent with America and its policies has intensified rather than diminished'' across the world. Majorities in Pakistan, Jordan, Morocco and Turkey believe that the U.S. is exaggerating the terrorist threat, doubt the sincerity of the U.S. war on terrorism and say that it is an effort to control Mideast oil and dominate the world. The Center found that:

At least half the people in countries other than the U.S.

say as a result of the war in Iraq they have less confidence

that the United States is trustworthy. Similarly, majorities

in all of these countries say they have less confidence that

the U.S. wants to promote democracy globally.

Our motives are questioned, our public justifications and explanations viewed with skepticism, and our post-9/11 public diplomacy efforts have missed the mark, substituting pop music broadcasts, brochures and videos for the kind of respectful dialogue and engagement that could convince generations of angry young people that their humiliation is not our goal.

We have had over 3 years since September 11, 2001, to think strategically about how to win the fight against terrorism. But we have little to show for this time.

We have relied upon a doctrine that fails to recognize that our enemies do not rely on explicit state sponsorship of terrorism. By focusing almost entirely on possible state sponsors of terror, the administration failed to realize that our terrorist enemies operate effectively in weak and failing states and without the backing of national governments. This is a new enemy waging a new war against us, but the administration appears still to be stuck in an old cold war mindset.

We have muddled our language and our focus by conflating other priorities with the fight against terrorism, costing us credibility around the world and shattering the unified and resolved global coalition that emerged to support us in the aftermath of 9/11. By choosing to fight the war in Iraq in such a divisive and astronomically expensive fashion, we have diverted resources away from the fight against the terrorist networks that seek to destroy us and undermined our ability to win the hearts and minds of many whose support we will need to succeed in the long run.

We have recognized the dangers of nuclear proliferation in an age of terrorism, but have then pursued policies that may well create incentives for states to develop nuclear weapons as quickly as possible.

We have developed essentially no measures of success or failure when it comes to one of our most urgent priorities, as the 9/11 Commission underscored--preventing the continued growth of Islamist terrorism. In fact, we do not even know where we stand today in this vital struggle.

We have not given any serious thought to how to avoid the mistakes of the cold war, when we gave a free pass to forces of repression and brutality, as long as they did not come with a Communist bent. Those mistakes, as we all know, helped to make Afghanistan the brutally repressive terrorist haven that it was on 9/11.

We have not made an adequate investment in bolstering our diplomatic resources and engagement around the world. From Northern Nigeria to Eastern Kenya, we have virtually no presence. In Somalia, despite knowing that al-Qaida-linked terrorists have operated in the country, we simply failed to develop any policy at all.

While the administration's policy was failing on all of these fronts, the President's team was devoting its time and attention to selling the world and the American people a war in Iraq with fundamentally flawed intelligence, manipulative and misleading characterizations, and rosy predictions that provided horribly, dangerously off-the-mark. The administration's Iraq policies in the first term painted a picture of an American government that isn't so sure it rejects torture; that isn't competent and careful enough to properly vet intelligence presented in major speeches and briefings; that willfully rejects the lessons of history and advice of its own experts; that is surprised when disorder results in massive looting; that misleads taxpayers regarding the costs and commitments entailed in its policies; that spends billions upon billions without any effort to budget for these predictable costs; and that is willing to politicize issues fundamental to our national security in the ugliest possible way.

We deserve better. Certainly the brave men and women of the U.S. military who are fighting every day to make this effort in Iraq work deserve better. We do not honor them by accepting lousy, irresponsible policy in the halls and hearing rooms of the Capitol and then leaving them holding the bag on the ground, when policy collides with the hard truth.

The administration's record of the past 4 years suggests a foreign policy careening out of control, driven by ideologies who want to test their theories in the laboratory of the Middle East one minute, by domestic political considerations the next, and by spiteful attempts to punish those who disagree with their methods the next. Where is this going? Who is in charge? No one ever seems to be held accountable for the blunders, the failures, the wildly inaccurate presentations and projections or the painfully ineffective initiatives.

Congress cannot simply accept more of the same, keep our heads down and hope that somehow we will muddle through. The stakes are far too high. Our national security, the stability of the world that our children will inherit, our troops--even our country's honor--are on the line. Congress has an obligation, not to oppose every administration effort, but to reassert our role in steering the ship of state wisely rather than recklessly. I look at our foreign policy over the past 4 years, and I know that America is so much better than this.

I look forward to the opportunity to raise these concerns with Dr. Rice when she testifies before the Foreign Relations Committee, and to receiving some assurance that she will work with Congress to put our country's foreign policy on a better, more effective footing.

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

Mr. President, I express my concerns about the troubling situation in Cote d'Ivoire.

As my colleagues know, in September 2002, rebellion broke out in Cote d'Ivoire, eventually dividing the country between the north, where rebels known as the Force Nouvelle established themselves, and the south, where President Laurent Gbagbo's government continued to exercise its authority. The Economic Community of West African states, or ECOWAS, helped to negotiate a ceasefire, and in January 2003 international efforts to mediate the crisis culminated in the signing of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement of early 2003, which provided for an interim Government of National Reconciliation to move the country toward new elections. The United Nations established a peacekeeping mission and over 6,000 troops from around the world deployed to monitor the ceasefire and help the parties implement the peace accord--further evidence of international will to help the people of Cote d'Ivoire regain a stable footing and reestablish a just and peaceful unified government.

Throughout these diplomatic efforts, 4,000 French soldiers have served as the backbone of the international presence that has worked to guarantee the peace. Much as the United Kingdom played a pivotal role in stabilizing Sierra Leone, France made an admirable commitment to the people of Cote d'Ivoire. And despite the friction between France and the U.S. on other important global issues, we have continued to work closely and cooperatively to resolve this crisis.

But over the many months that have passed since the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement was signed, progress toward implementing the accords has stalled, as both parties failed to take constructive steps to move the country toward lasting stability. Then, on November 4, President Gbagbo broke the ceasefire agreement, and in an apparent bid to find a military solution, launched air raids on rebel positions in the north. On November 6, the Ivorian forces bombed a French position, killing nine French soldiers and an American aid worker, and wounding dozens more. France retaliated by destroying the Ivorian air force. What followed was an orchestrated campaign, conducted largely via broadcasts on state-controlled media outlets, to encourage citizens to participate in a rampage of anti-French violence and looting.

I am heartened by the unity and resolve of the international community in confronting this crisis, and by the rejection of Ivorian efforts to justify the bombings and to vilify France. U.N. peacekeepers performed bravely in trying to protect the zone of confidence during the recent hostilities. South African President Thabo Mbeki moved quickly to reach out to all parties and open the door to dialogue that could diffuse the situation, though sadly, his efforts were not embraced by all parties. On November 15, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution establishing an arms embargo on Cote d'Ivoire, and indicating that a travel ban and asset freeze will be applied to anyone from among the government or rebel ranks found to be an impediment to progress on implementing the peace accords. I welcome this resolution and its insistence on accountability from all parties to Cote d'Ivoire's conflict.

In addition to accountable, constructive leadership, there is a desperate need for grassroots reconciliation efforts. The tensions that came to a boil in 2002 have, sadly, been simmering for some time. In the 1990s, some pursued a deliberate effort to promote a divisive, destructive, xenophobic brand of nationalism in the country, and if a lasting peace is to take hold and the people of Cote d'Ivoire are to be free from fear of a return to violence and chaos, a great deal of work must be done to lessen ethnic tensions and build confidence and trust in Ivorian communities. In recent days, French nationals have been the targets of ugly invective, but in the recent past it has been northern Ivorians, immigrants, and Muslims who have been demonized. I urge the administration to make combating ethnic and regional divisions a major focus of U.S. efforts in Cote d'Ivoire. Even as we work with the international community to hold leaders accountable for their actions, we must also assist in laying the groundwork for peace among the people themselves.

The downward spiral in Cote d'Ivoire is especially troubling because the country had, not long ago, been a beacon of stability and important economic engine in a deeply troubled region. After all of the suffering in Sierra Leone and Liberia, and all of the costly efforts launched to bring stability back to West Africa, the international community cannot afford to lose Cote d'Ivoire to perpetual crisis.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana not only for his leadership in the body but for his words about the fiscal situation our country faces. I particularly thank him for his emphasis on the need to return to those important fiscal budget rules, the pay- go rules that guided us so well for so many years. I hope and trust this will be the first of many times he will address the body about the need to get back to that discipline. I intend to do the same here today. I think very few things are more important to our country than to return to the fiscal discipline we actually accomplished on a bipartisan basis during the 1990s after the very reckless policies of the 1980s.

Today we are again forced to consider legislation to raise the Nation's debt limit. It is obvious to anyone but those who refuse to see that we are here because of the grossly reckless fiscal policies that have been advanced by the administration and Congress over the past 4 years.

The last 4 years have seen a dramatic deterioration in the Government's ability to perform one of its most important and fundamental jobs, and that I do not need to tell the Presiding Officer about because he is a stalwart on this issue; and that is, the balancing of the Nation's fiscal books.

We are all familiar with the history. In January of 2001, the Congressional Budget Office projected that in the 10 years thereafter, the Government would run a unified budget surplus--surplus--of more than $5 trillion. Almost 4 years later, we are staring at almost a mirror image of that estimate--a 10-year, $5 trillion surplus--except that instead of healthy surpluses, under any reasonable set of assumptions, we are now facing immense deficits.

We absolutely cannot afford to continue to run up these massive deficits. Doing so causes the Government to use the surpluses of the Social Security trust fund, and use them for other Government purposes, rather than to pay down the debt and to help our Nation prepare for the coming retirement of the baby-boom generation.

Every dollar we add to the Federal debt is another dollar we are forcing our children to pay back in higher taxes or fewer Government benefits. So today's vote to raise the debt limit basically ratifies the actions taken by the administration and the Congress to stick future generations with an immense credit card bill.

That is what we are doing when the Government, in this generation, chooses to spend on current consumption and to accumulate debt for our children's generation to pay. It does nothing less than rob our children of their own choices. We make our choices to spend on our wants, but we saddle them with the debts they must pay from their tax dollars and their hard work.

Obviously that is not right. This has to stop. We have to rein in the fiscal policies that have forced today's vote. That means making some tough spending cuts. It means putting a stop to the inexcusably reckless tax policies of the past 4 years. And it means putting some meaningful, tough, and sustainable budget enforcement mechanisms in place that return us to what the Senator from Montana was talking about and what I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks.

Earlier this year a bipartisan majority in this body supported just such a mechanism. The amendment I offered during the Senate's consideration of the budget resolution would have reinstated the pay- as-you-go rule for taxes and mandatory spending that served our Nation so well during the 1990s. It was adopted by a bipartisan majority. I salute the Presiding Officer for his courage in siding with me and others across party lines to try to institute--actually reinstitute-- those pay-as-you-go rules that we had a pretty good bipartisan consensus about during the 1990s.

I actually believe it would have passed the other body but for some heavyhanded maneuvers by House leadership. Instead, the administration's election year agenda steamrolled over efforts to return some fiscal sanity to our budget process.

I also believe there are many in this body who did not support my amendment but who know, in their heart of hearts, that reinstating the pay-go rule is simply the right thing to do. They know how essential it is to impose some self-restraint on congressional appetites. I suspect we would have gotten an even bigger majority vote if not for the exertion of some of the strong pressure on Members that is more common more often in the other body.

We need a strong budget process. We need to exert fiscal discipline. This Congress failed to do so, and left the Nation worse off for their failure.

When we look at this fiscal mess, it boils down to a lack of restraint and a lack of judgment. Wisconsin families face tough choices about their budgets every day, and they shoulder tough financial burdens. But they do not throw up their hands and keep spending. They have to make the choices that need to be made; and they do it. They do not do it because it is easy. They do it because they have to. They have to; and so do we.

We have to get our house in order, like so many Americans do every day. Reinstating pay-go and adopting some other strong budget reforms should be among the highest priorities of the next Congress. We should return to the rules by which Congress played for the decade of the 1990s. We should eliminate the loopholes carved in the pay-go rule as part of the budget resolution adopted in 2003. Those loopholes only facilitated more damage to the Federal budget bottom line.

Reinstating the pay-go rule by itself will not balance the books. But it will make it harder for this body to make the deficit worse. It does not make it impossible, it just makes it harder, and that is exactly as it should be.

Given our current budget position, we ought to make it harder to make the deficit worse. We ought to require 60 votes if we are to pursue tax policies or new mandatory spending that is not fully paid for. I do not think that is too much to ask. And those rules worked well just a few years back.

We know this debt limit bill is going to pass. It was made necessary by irresponsible budget policies that were pushed by the administration and aided and abetted by Congress. This ought to be the last debt limit bill we ever consider, but unless we change things, it won't be. We have to change things on this pay-go rule and beyond or we will simply be in the same position time and time again.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor.