Floor Statements

Madam President, I thank Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley and the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, who have been so energetic in preserving, enhancing, and protecting this plan. Rhode Island has a significant role, going back to the days of John Chafee, whose name has been mentioned by Senator Hatch, and, of course, through Senator Jack Reed, whose relentless advocacy for this program is a legend on this floor.

My time is very short, so I will speak to a very simple point and come back and speak more to the children's health issue later in the debate.

It strikes me, as a new legislator, that legislating is about choices. The distinguished Senator from Utah said this bill is expensive, but it is the right thing to do. I would like to show two charts to help illustrate the expense in some context.

This is a chart which illustrates the additional cost we are talking about for children's health care in America, the subject we are debating in these increments, the increase over the next 3 years. The chart compares it to the cost to all of us of the Bush tax cuts going to the 1 percent of the richest Americans. So is it expensive to spend $2.1 billion on children's health care in 2008? It probably is. And is it expensive to spend $5 billion on children's health care, increasing it in 2009? Is it expensive to spend $7.9 billion? It probably is. But this is an administration which is happy to spend $70 billion on the richest 1 percent of America in the same year that they are fighting about $2.1 billion to improve health care for children. They are willing to spend $72 billion in the following year and $82 billion after that. So in the context of comparing expense to doing the right thing, it is a little bit expensive, but is it ever the right thing, particularly in a world where we are judged by our choices.

Here is another demonstration of really the same principle. We are talking about a cost spread over 5 years to help America's children have health insurance. By comparison, the interest alone on the Federal debt George Bush ran up with his tax cuts to the rich, just the interest expense in the fiscal year 2007, is more than that. It is $46 billion. This administration is fighting about whether we should spend $35.2 billion over 5 years for children's health insurance, poor children's health insurance, versus the Gulf Stream gazillionaires' tax breaks.

If you look to the President for leadership, you don't find it. What you find in his budget is $5 billion across the whole period instead of 35, which, because of the increase in medical costs over that period, it has been estimated would throw a million American children off of health insurance.

What Chairman Baucus has done, what Ranking Member Grassley has done, is work out a bipartisan compromise in the Senate that is the right thing to do and not all that expensive.

I congratulate them.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, yesterday, as you will recall, in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Gonzales appeared. I spoke with him about a seemingly simple concept, the impartial administration of justice.

But, as is so often the case with this administration and with this Attorney General, the simple is often confused, and what should be impartial is often tainted with politics.

I asked the Attorney General about the administration's policy regarding communications between staff at the Department of Justice and at the White House, about ongoing investigations and cases. This kind of conversation, of course, should be very limited in scope. Until recently, it was.

Attorney General Janet Reno wrote, in a 1994 letter to White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler:

Initial communications between the White House and the

Justice Department regarding any pending Department

investigation or criminal or civil case should involve only

the White House Counsel or Deputy Counsel (or President or

Vice President), and the Attorney General or Deputy or

Associate Attorney General.

That is seven people, total. Four in the White House, three in the Department of Justice.

As I pointed out to the Attorney General, this administration has dramatically expanded this policy to allow literally hundreds of people at the White House to discuss sensitive case-specific information with dozens of people at the Department of Justice. Even worse, a further revision to this policy signed by Attorney General Gonzales specifically added the Vice Presidents's Chief of Staff and the Vice President's Counsel, David Addington, to the list of those empowered to have these conversations. Karl Rove, by the way, is also on the list.

Why in the world would it be appropriate to give the Vice President's staff a green light to muck around in sensitive Department of Justice affairs? Based on my experience as a U.S. attorney, I can think of no reason.

So why did the Attorney General himself issue a memo specifically authorizing that? Well, the Attorney General himself seemed to have no idea. When I asked him about it yesterday, he said:

As a general matter, I would say that that's a good

question. I'd have to go back and look at this. On it's face,

I must say, sitting here, I am troubled by this.

Well, Mr. Gonzales, I am troubled by this too. Troubled but, unfortunately, not surprised.

Not surprised because this administration has, at almost every turn, done everything possible to enhance the power of the President and the Vice President to dismiss Congress's essential constitutional oversight responsibilities, to disrupt the balance of power crafted by our forefathers and to thwart those who would stand up and say: Enough is enough.

But now a chorus of Senators is finally saying: Enough is enough.

When I ran for the Senate, I spoke often about the need for a check on the Bush administration's relentless abuse of power. Now, after having served in this great institution for only 6\1/2\ months, I feel more strongly than ever that it is vital for our Democratic majority to serve as an essential bulwark against an imperial executive branch.

Without 60 votes, we cannot get things done over objection from the other side as often as we would like. But with a majority, we can at least stop some of the mischief. We can stop them from politicizing everything from Government-funded scientific research to U.S. attorney's offices, Government functions that have historically operated entirely free of partisan influence.

We can spotlight their efforts to undo our system of checks and balances, their penchant for unneeded secrecy, and often, disregard for the law and our American principles.

We can call them out when they use national security as a shield against legitimate oversight and as a weapon against political adversaries, against attempts to conduct Government in secret and in darkness and sometimes in defiance of the law.

In the process, the administration has done grave damage to the principles and values that have made this country an example for the world. The writ of habeas corpus? Adherence to the Geneva Conventions? The independence of Federal prosecutors? The principle of judicial review? The notion that a citizen in a democracy has a right to know what their Government is doing in his name?

Each of these, in ways great and small, has been eroded by this administration. Then, when you think they cannot possibly push the envelope any further, they do. I am referring to two recent episodes: First, the Vice President's now infamous and incredible assertion that his office is exempt from an Executive order designed to protect classified information because it is not, get this, it is not an entity within the executive branch, and the Attorney General's apparent complicity with this theory.

Executive Order No. 12958, as amended by President Bush, regulates the classification, safeguarding, and declassification of national security information. It also requires the National Archives' Information Security Oversight Office to, among other things, conduct onsite inspection of Federal agencies and White House offices to ensure compliance with these important regulations.

Despite cooperating with the National Archives in 2001 and 2002, in 2003, the Vice President abruptly decided he was above complying with an Executive order, even one signed by President Bush.

Repeated attempts by the National Archives to secure the Vice President's cooperation or at least an explanation for noncompliance were met with silence and then, apparently, an effort to abolish the office that had dared try to enforce the law.

In the meantime, in January 2007, the National Archives referred the question to the Department of Justice for clarification, as to whether the Vice President is an executive branch entity required to comply with an Executive order. You might think that in 6 months the Department of Justice would produce a memo stating the Vice President must comply with Executive orders and that he is, in fact, as we all know, in the executive branch.

Well, you would be wrong. The Vice President makes an argument that would flunk an elementary school civics test so he may circumvent safeguards on national security information. The Attorney General goes along with this by refusing even to respond to a letter seeking clarification of the law, which is a core function of the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.

What is going on here? Second, in this ignominious list is the President's

personal intervention to deny security clearances to investigators from the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, or as we call it, OPR, who were looking into the administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program.

This is the first time ever an OPR investigator was denied necessary clearances to conduct their investigation. Of course, the denial of security clearances had the intended effect: The investigation by OPR was shut down.

Now, as we all know, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, has been forced to issue subpoenas to the White House, the Office of the Vice President, the Department of Justice, and the National Security Council, in order to obtain information Congress has sought for months related to the administration's legal justification for the warrantless wiretapping program.

If the White House's refusal to honor earlier congressional subpoenas and turn over information on the U.S. attorney firings is any indication of things to come, we can expect more stalling and more stonewalling by this administration as Congress seeks to learn the truth.

Again, what is going on here? What is going on, I believe, is a systematic effort on the part of the Bush administration, to twist, to partisan and political advantage, threats to our national security as justification for conducting Government in secret and in darkness, shadowed from congressional oversight and far from the light of public scrutiny.

If this requires making preposterous arguments, such as the Vice President's, in their view, that is fine. If this requires taking unprecedented action to deny clearance to Government investigators, fine by them. If this requires dispensing with many years of tradition and practice, distorting the plain language of Executive orders and abdicating the Department of Justice's watchdog role, again, fine with them. If this requires attempts to a evade even a congressional subpoena, well, that is apparently fine too.

I will end where I began, with the issue of communications regarding ongoing cases and investigations between the White House and the Department of Justice. As Mr. Gonzales acknowledged yesterday, the greatest danger of infection of the Department of Justice with improper political influence comes from the White House.

Along with Chairman Leahy, I have introduced a bill to set the Reno- Cutler policy for White House contacts as a baseline and to require the Department of Justice and the White House to report to Congress any time they authorize someone else to have these sensitive discussions.

It is my sincere hope this bill will have bipartisan support. But this bill is only one small part of a larger effort to restore checks and balances to our Government. We must and we will continue this effort, challenging the administration to work for the Democratic Congress, to stop playing politics with national security, and to end the secrecy and abuse of power that have become the hallmark of the Bush era.

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

Will the Senator from North Carolina yield for a question?

I wanted to follow up, if I may for a moment, on the point raised by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts who has just indicated that the effect of this amendment on my home State of Rhode Island would be $16 million less in student loans available for students. I ask the distinguished Senator from North Carolina if this is, in fact, correct? And if it is correct, where does that $16 million go that could otherwise be supporting higher education for students in my State?

If the Senator will yield for another question, does that mean that there is, in fact, with all of that said, still $16 million less available to Rhode Island students as a result of this amendment?

I thank the Senator for his courtesy.

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

Mr. President, many years ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson said:

We have entered an age in which education is not just a

luxury permitting some men an advantage over others. It has

become a necessity without which a person is defenseless in

this complex, industrialized society. We have truly entered

the century of the educated man.

Those are important words to ponder as we consider the legislation now before the Senate. I thank Senators Kennedy and Enzi for their extraordinary leadership on this issue as well as so many others, and for the opportunity I have to speak today.

I am here to talk about an initiative that revolutionized higher education in America, and that is the Pell grant. Inside this desk at which I stand are the names of Senators who have occupied it before me. I can actually open this drawer, take out the stuff in the drawer, and in the drawer I can see the names of Senators who have gone before me at the bottom. Here is John O. Pastore of Rhode Island, who served with great distinction and was my last Democratic predecessor in the Senate. It is hard to see because he was not a proud man and wouldn't write it in great big letters, but I can see, very carefully written, ``Pell, RI,'' Senator Pell of Rhode Island. It is a remarkable thing for me to be here in this context because Senator Claiborne Pell and his wife Nuala have long been cherished friends. Senator Pell is both a mentor to me and a constant reminder of the positive impact an individual person can have through public service.

I am so glad the Senator Salazar from Colorado is presiding at this particular moment because I wish to describe to everyone a remarkable event that I was privileged to witness a few years ago. I was at an event in Rhode Island with a number of Senators, including the Senator Salazar. During that event, Senator Pell came to the tent we were all under in his wheelchair. As many of our colleagues know, he habitually uses a wheelchair now. The group became very quiet as he entered out of the respect we in Rhode Island have for this great and dedicated public servant. The Senator from Colorado, Mr. Salazar, went over to Senator Pell, took his hand and shook it and told him: I would not have been able to attend college if it had not been for the support of the Pell grant program. Now, I am standing here before you today, a United States Senator, thanks to the vision and foresight you showed years ago, your vision that every American should be able to get a college education.

It was an unforgettable moment then; it gives me goosebumps to recount it now. It happened because Senator Pell understood the difference that higher education could make in the lives of America's young people--from the Ken Salazar, who now serves with such distinction in this great institution, to those who will seize the opportunities of America in the decades to come.

Today, the program that bears Senator Pell's name is in our hands.

Each spring, high school seniors in Rhode Island and across the country wait anxiously for acceptance letters from the colleges of their choice. I have been through this experience recently with my daughter and all of her classmates. But for many American families, almost as important as those letters from the admissions office are the letters from the financial aid office. I have heard from so many families in Rhode Island who look ahead to the day when their children will go off to college and seize their bright futures, but wonder how they will ever be able to afford it without some form of financial aid, either from the institution itself or from the Federal Government.

As the cost of higher education soars higher, up 35 percent in 5 years, students and parents face ever more difficult financial choices. Many go into debt, not only through Federal student loan programs, but increasingly to private lenders. Many shoulder enormous burdens of debt that can stay with them throughout their lives. When that high school senior receives a Pell grant, money that does not have to be paid back, the dream of college becomes more of a reality.

Since the Pell grant program began, these grants have been a critical form of Federal aid that has helped literally millions of young people across this country achieve a level of education that was previously out of their reach. Unfortunately, Pell grants now represent only 33 percent, one-third, of the total cost of a 4-year public university. Twenty years ago, a Pell grant would have paid 60 percent of that cost.

As higher education for Americans has become more and more important, not just to their individual opportunities but also to our national economy and competitiveness--remember the words of Lyndon Johnson so many years ago: ``We have truly entered the century of the educated man''--we need education to compete. Through that time Pell grants have actually lost value versus the actual cost of college. But the support for low-income students through the Pell grants has slid away over the years, until it is now only 33 percent of the cost of a public university. So we must recommit ourselves to making college affordable to all students.

The Promise grants created by the Higher Education Access Act will guarantee that students who qualify for the maximum Pell grant will receive $5,100 for the 2008-2009 academic year and $5,400 by 2011. For us in Rhode Island, this will mean $10 million in additional grant funds for Rhode Island students next year and, over the next 5 years, $86 million. It will also expand family access to Pell grants, better reflecting today's economic realities.

Senator Pell is part of a strong tradition of Rhode Island Senators who have committed themselves to making higher education accessible to all Americans. This tradition is proudly carried on by Senator Pell's direct successor in this Chamber, my friend, Senator Jack Reed, a champion of higher education access and affordability. I admire his work to provide more Pell grant aid for students who need it the most-- those who work and those whose family income is under $30,000.

We see in this Chamber and across the country every day--every year in September when a new group of students go off to college--the tremendous influence the work of Senator Pell has had on the fabric of our Nation and on the lives of the millions of young Americans who have used Pell grants to make their dream of higher education a reality.

I applaud this important legislation. Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi have worked hard together in a wonderful bipartisan spirit to put together legislation that will advance the strength of our country and the opportunity for our young people. This is a vital step and an important investment we must make in the future of America's young people.

I yield the floor.

I will be sure to do that.

Good morning. Not long ago, a woman who lives in Pawtucket, RI, wrote me:

I care about the human spirit, which I think is deeply

wounded by our occupation in Iraq. I have three friends

serving this country because they believe it is their duty. I

believe it is your duty to bring them home. I beg you for an

end to this war.

She is not just a lone voice from one State. All over this country, Americans call for an end to this war. At the grocery store, around the kitchen table, and in places of worship, Americans are sharing their frustration and outrage at a President who refuses to listen, refuses to admit mistakes and misjudgments, and stubbornly refuses to change course.

The amendment sponsored by my distinguished senior Senator, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, and the honorable chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin of Michigan, would require a redeployment of American troops to begin within 120 days of enactment. It sets a reasonable, responsible goal: that the redeployment be completed by April 30 of next year--2008.

Let us be clear: the Levin-Reed amendment offers a new direction in Iraq.

A vote for the Levin-Reed amendment is a vote to support our troops and their families who are bearing the burden of repeated deployments, long separation, and sometimes debilitating injury, and they bear it with courage, fortitude, and honor. This measure supports them by bringing the troops home safely and with honor.

A vote for the Levin-Reed amendment is a vote that will help give our military the time and the resources to rebuild and recover from the strain on our troops and equipment.

A vote for the Levin-Reed amendment opens strategic doors to renew diplomacy in the Middle East and throughout the world and to begin restoring America's standing, prestige, and good will in the global community.

More and more of our colleagues in this body recognize the need for this new direction. Many of those who supported the war in the past have now said they can no longer support President Bush in his failed and misguided course in Iraq. But I say to my friends, when the issue before us is our single most important matter of foreign policy and national security, words alone are not enough.

When our Nation's course has been as misdirected and mismanaged as it has been, words alone are not enough.

When, in the face of this policy's failure and the resulting chaos in Iraq,

corrective action is called for, words are not enough.

And when the opportunity for that correction is within our reach, within our grasp, if only we would seize it, mere words are not enough.

This is a day when we are called upon to act. The question before us is simple: Are you in favor of bringing our troops home? That is a serious question, and it demands serious, reasoned, and thoughtful debate.

I was recently struck by words spoken in this Chamber by Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana. Senator Lugar's words imparted a thoughtfulness that too long has been missing from this debate. Too often, this administration communicates not with reason but with slogans and sound bites: ``Stay the course.'' ``Support the troops.'' ``Global war on terror.'' ``Cut and run.'' ``Precipitous withdrawal.'' I say to anyone watching this debate: When you hear those words coming from this Chamber, I hope an alarm bell goes off in your head, a signal that thinking and reason have ended and sloganeering has begun. You deserve better.

In May of 2003, President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and said this:

Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle

of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

In the background, of course, was the banner that read: ``Mission Accomplished.''

Then, over a year ago, in June 2006, President Bush announced Operation Together Forward, a ``joint effort to restore security and rule of law to high-risk areas in the capital city'' of Baghdad.

Then, this January, the President said he would send tens of thousands more troops there, part of a surge to try yet again to secure Iraq's capital.

The months since President Bush's surge have been among the deadliest of the war. Nearly 600 U.S. soldiers have died since the announcement of the surge, and over 3,500 have been wounded. Last month, more than 100 American servicemembers died in Iraq. The month before that, more than 100 American troops lost their lives. The month before that, April of this year, over 100 American deaths. Between February 10 and May 7 of this year, the Pentagon reports U.S. forces sustained an average of 25 casualties each day--more than during that time in the previous year.

Alasdair Campbell, the U.K.'s outgoing Defense Attache at its Baghdad Embassy, said in May:

The evidence does not suggest that the surge is actually

working, if reduction in casualties is a criterion.

The Pentagon's survey found that, on average, more than 100 Iraqi civilians were killed or wounded each day between February and May-- nearly double the daily total from the same period 1 year ago.

The number of unidentified murdered bodies found in Baghdad soared 70 percent during the month of May--726, compared to 411 in April. At least 21 unidentified murdered bodies were found in Baghdad just this past weekend. The displacement of Iraqi civilians has continued throughout the spring--90,000 Iraqis per month in March, April, and May of 2007, according to the Brookings monthly Iraq Index. The average weekly number of attacks across Iraq surpassed 1,000, compared to about 600 weekly attacks for the same period 1 year ago. More than 75 percent of the attacks were aimed at U.S. forces.

In an interview with the Washington Post in June, retired general Barry McCaffrey said:

Why would we think that a temporary presence of 30,000

additional combat troops in a giant city would change the

dynamics of a bitter civil war?

In a survey taken in February and March of this year, 53 percent of Iraqis viewed their security environment as ``bad or very bad,'' and even in that environment, 78 percent of Iraqis, in an ABC News study, do not support having American or coalition forces in their country. Only 18 percent have confidence in U.S. and coalition troops, the BBC has reported, and 51 percent approve of attacking our forces.

David Kilcullen, General Petraeus's top counterinsurgency adviser, said last month:

We haven't turned the tide. We haven't turned the corner.

There isn't light at the end of the tunnel.

We will not turn the tide, we will not turn the corner, and there will be no light at the end of the tunnel until this administration makes it clear that our intent is to withdraw our forces rapidly and responsibly.

The other side argues that to dispute this President's judgment is to fail to support the troops, even though that very judgment has catastrophically failed the troops and our country.

I traveled to Iraq in March, in my capacity as a new member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to get a firsthand look. I met brave Rhode Islanders in Fallujah and at a medical center where Rhode Islanders are helping provide care to our wounded soldiers. They, like all our troops in Iraq, are serving our Nation with dedication, courage, and honor. Our troops are working so hard and accomplishing so much, but this administration has not given them the support they need--not in the field of battle, not when they return home, and, most importantly, not with wisdom to match their bravery.

As I traveled around Rhode Island in the last few years I met mothers who felt they had to buy body armor for their sons who were being shipped to Iraq because they could not trust this administration to provide it.

Just this week, USA Today reported extensively on the Pentagon's failure to address the Marines' request for Mine Resistant Ambush Protection--or MRAP--vehicles.

In February, a series of articles in the Washington Post highlighted shortfalls in the care and treatment of our wounded warriors at the Walter Reed Army hospital. The Nation's shock and dismay reflected the American people's support, respect, and gratitude for the men and women who put on our Nation's uniform. They deserve the best, not shoddy medical equipment, rundown facilities, and bureaucratic snafus.

This administration says we need to support the troops. I agree. We can support the troops by ensuring that they have the equipment, resources, and protection they need--and by caring for them when they return home. We can also support them with wise strategies arising from honest debate.

The President says Iraq is part of a vast ``global war on terror'' and that remaining mired in a conflict there is critical to our national security. But the war in Iraq has made us less, not more, secure. The way to reverse this trend is to redeploy our troops out of Iraq.

After our country has expended over $450 billion and lost more than 3,600 American lives, according to the unclassified key judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate released yesterday, al-Qaida and other Islamist terrorist groups remain undiminished in their intent to attack the United States and continue to adapt and improve their capabilities.

While the Bush administration wallows in Iraq, al-Qaida has protected sanctuary along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, again according to the unclassified key judgments of the NIE.

National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he believes a successful attack by al-Qaida would most likely be planned and come out of the group's locations in Pakistan, not Iraq. Al-Qaida, the perpetrators of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, remains a significant threat to our country and our national security, and 4 years of war in Iraq has not changed that fact.

President Bush and his diehard allies say that what we and the American people support is cut-and-run or a precipitous withdrawal.

The Levin-Reed amendment requires that we begin redeploying American troops from Iraq 4 months after the measure is enacted--not 4 days, not 4 weeks, but 4 months. Surely, with the greatest military in the world, we have the capacity to plan in 4 months to begin a redeployment of our troops. In fact, I would be surprised and concerned if our military were not already planning for such a contingency.

Then, the Levin-Reed amendment sets a date for redeployment of April 30, 2008. If this amendment became law tomorrow, that would give our military and this administration more than 9 months to plan and implement our troops' redeployment--a redeployment that leaves a military presence for force protection, training, and

counterterrorism in Iraq. Is that truly a precipitous withdrawal? It is not. Those who say it is are not being straightforward with the Senate and with the American people.

Let me say this, because it is one of the elements of this issue which President Bush has completely and willfully overlooked: The time it will take for us to redeploy should not be idle or wasted time; it must be a time of great energy and effort, because it is our time of opportunity to begin the tough process of diplomacy that can help stabilize the Middle East and restore America's standing and prestige around the world.

It is a window of time in which we must aggressively engage the region and the world community in the ongoing work to rebuild Iraq and restore stability there, in which we can confound the insurgents who foment civil war from within Iraq and the global jihadists who import violence from without it. It is a window in which Iraq's political leaders can be motivated to work for cooperation, unity, and real progress.

In a recent op-ed in the Washington Post, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger described the reality that the cauldron of Iraq may overflow and engulf the region. He goes on to say that:

The continuation of Iraq's current crisis presents all of

Iraq's neighbors with mounting problems. . . . Saudi Arabia

and Jordan dread Shiite domination of Iraq, especially if the

Baghdad regime threatens to be a satellite of Iran. The

various Gulf sheikdoms, the largest of which is Kuwait,

find themselves in an even more threatened position. Their

interest is to help calm the Iraq turmoil and avert

Iranian domination of the region.

Then he says that:

Given a wise and determined American diplomacy, even Iran

may be brought to conclude that the risks of continued

turmoil outweigh the temptations before it.

But make no mistake, as long as we occupy Iraq, the broader international engagement we need will remain elusive. With the announcement of a U.S. redeployment, Iraq's neighbors must face the prospect that the Iraq cauldron may overflow, and they will, therefore, be obliged to take a more helpful--in the case of Saudi Arabia--or a more tempered--in the case of Iran--role in the area's future. They will have no other practical choice because their own national interests will now be squarely on the line.

As ADM William J. Fallon has said:

I see an awful lot of sitting and watching by countries in

the neighborhood. It is high time that changed.

Well, it is high time that changed, but our mediate and buffering military presence prevents that from changing.

A redeployment will also deprive the insurgents of a strong recruiting tool--the al-Qaida narrative that the United States has imperial designs over Muslim lands, which resonates strongly in the Middle East due to their own colonial experiences with the British and the Ottomans.

If we make it clear that our troops are coming home--and, critically important, that we are not leaving permanent bases behind--the insurgents and terror networks will lose this defining argument.

The Bush administration and its supporters noted that the Sunni sheiks of Anbar Province have recently turned against al-Qaida in Iraq. When I met with Marine commanders in Fallujah during my trip to Iraq in March, they told me the same thing--and what an important and exciting development that was.

The marine general briefing us made clear that these Sunni sheiks turned against al-Qaida in the realization that the United States would not be in Iraq forever, thanks to the political debate this Congress has insisted on since the November election. It was the prospect of our redeployment that moved them to action.

Once all factions in Iraq must face the naked consequences of their actions, we should hope, and expect, to see similar moments of strategic clarity emerge.

How are they doing without that pressure? Last week, we saw a report from the White House that was deeply troubling. The report said that it has become significantly harder for Iraqi leaders to make the difficult compromises necessary to foster reconciliation.

In particular, the administration has focused on four objectives: provincial elections, deBaathification, constitutional reform, and the hydrocarbons law. These are the exact same issues U.S. and Iraqi military leaders stressed to us during our trip in March. Without progress in these areas, I was told by our generals, our military tactics would not succeed in accomplishing the ultimate goal.

It would be putting it mildly to say I was not reassured by the signals I received from our meetings with Iraqi officials. There was a severe disconnect between the urgency of our generals about this legislation and the absence of equivalent urgency, or even energy, on the part of Iraqi officials. One American soldier I met put it in plain, homespun terms:

If your parents are willing to pay for the movies so you

don't have to use your own money, or if you can get your big

sister to do your homework for you, who wants to give that

up?

Well, Mr. President, it is time. To quote the report:

1, the government of Iraq has not made satisfactory

progress toward enacting and implementing legislation on de-

Baathi-

fication reform. This is among the most divisive political

issues for Iraq and compromise will be extremely difficult.

2, the current status [of efforts to enact hydrocarbon

legislation] is unsatisfactory. The government of Iraq has

not met its self-imposed goal of May 31 for submitting the

framework hydrocarbon revenue-sharing laws.

3, the government of Iraq has not made satisfactory

progress toward establishing a provincial election law.

4, the government of Iraq has not made satisfactory

progress toward establishing a date for provincial elections.

Legislation required for setting the date has not been

enacted.

5, the government of Iraq has not made satisfactory

progress toward establishing provincial council authorities.

So how does the administration respond to the list of unsatisfactory progress on their key elements? Let's turn again to the White House report:

De-Baathification:

This does not, however, necessitate a revision to the

current plan and strategy.

Hydrocarbon legislation:

This does not, however, necessitate a revision to our

current plan and strategy.

Provincial elections.

However, at this time, this does not necessitate a revision

to our current plan and strategy.

It is clear that the Iraqis have not yet made that progress. Yet this President and this administration refuse to take the one step that could truly galvanize real change in Iraq--announcing a redeployment of American forces. They must look into the abyss. We must announce that we will redeploy our troops. This is a necessary step.

A redeployment of our troops creates the potential to change the overarching dynamic for the better, freeing us to focus more effectively on strategies to counter al-Qaida and stabilize the region.

This is a critical step, and thoughtful, reasoned political and diplomatic leadership will be essential to take advantage of the new dynamic a redeployment offers.

This is a positive step, to improve our posture and advance our strategic interests.

I know my Republican colleagues wish to couch this change of course in terms of failure and abandonment. Whether this is just for rhetorical advantage, or whether they just cannot see redeployment as a calibrated part of a new and more promising regional strategy, I do not know. Let me say this, though. This is not a test of resolve. We have an enormously complex problem, a problem we have tried to solve by military force alone. Despite heroic efforts by our military, that strategy has failed--catastrophically. It did not fail because anything was lacking in our troops, it failed because the strategy was wrong-- wrong at its inception, wrong in its execution, and wrong now.

We in the Senate must challenge the administration to summon the political courage and the moral courage to face the fact that the strategy was wrong and needs to change. It is never easy to admit mistakes, but when the lives of our troops and the strategic position of our country are at stake, they have to do what is right, not what is politically comfortable or fits the rhetoric. This should not be too much to ask of a President of the United States.

If, as so many believe, we are on a continuing collision course with the

facts, with the lessons of history; if our strategy is, in fact, ill- advised; if we indeed are creating and maintaining a poisonous dynamic in the region for ourselves, can we not at least consider that redeployment--specifically, the credible threat of redeployment--can open new doors for resolving the civil conflicts over which we are now the unwelcome police?

The measure now before the Senate sets forth a thoughtful, responsible path to redeploy our troops out of Iraq. It provides our military commanders with the time and resources they need to redeploy our troops safely. It will focus Iraq's political leaders on making progress, where, to put it mildly, thus far insufficient progress has been made on measures critical to their nation's future and our success. And it will galvanize the international community and the region in the practical and self-interested pursuit--or acceptance--of a more stable, more secure Iraq.

The Levin-Reed amendment is the new direction Americans have called for. It is the change of course we desperately need. In a few hours, this long debate, this long night, will draw to a close. I urge my colleagues to let us vote up or down, yes or no, on the new direction the Levin-Reed amendment embodies.

Mr. President, if the Senator will amend his consent request so that both sides have equal additional time in morning business, there will be no objection.

No objection. I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I believe I have 15 minutes to speak in morning business; is that correct?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, the American people have demanded a new direction in Iraq, and the momentum building toward that change is strong. It is not difficult to understand why. More than 3,600 brave American troops have lost their lives. Tens of thousands have returned home gravely injured--gravely injured. The war now costs Americans $10 billion every month in Iraq, with total spending now exceeding that of the Vietnam war. It has ruined our international standing.

Despite all this, little has changed on the ground. Violence has worsened. Sectarian fighting goes on virtually unabated, with deadly attacks taking a severe and relentless toll. While courageous Americans die, Iraqi politicians argue and stall.

Leaving U.S. troops caught in the morass of Iraq has not made that country more secure and, more important, it does not make our country more secure. To stay President Bush's course will continue to cost our men and women in uniform their lives and their physical and mental health. It will continue to drain our national Treasury and further erode what little good will remains for America around the world. It will leave our military with overstrained troops, overstressed families, and equipment and resources in disrepair. We are breaking our military in Iraq.

It is time for a change. The American people know this. Democrats and, to their credit, many Republicans in this Congress know this. Anyone who is listening or looking with clear eyes knows this. Yet after years of misjudgments, years of misleading slogans, years of misplaced priorities, and years of failure, this President still refuses to do what he must do: Change course in Iraq and bring our courageous American troops home.

Just the other day, the President reasserted his intention to stay the course, to continue this war indefinitely, an open-ended commitment, a blank check, with no prospects for redeployment or a new direction. Again, President Bush has failed to listen to the millions of Americans who have called on him and who have called on us to bring the war to an end. Enough is enough. It is time for a change.

Mr. President, a Member of this body recently said this about our Nation's course in Iraq:

In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the

current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be

achieved. Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy

will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of

protecting our vital interests over the long-term.

I happen to agree with those words spoken by the very distinguished Senator, Richard Lugar of Indiana, but what I like the most about them is the voice of reason and thoughtfulness they impart to this debate. There has been too little of that to date. The questions we face over this war in Iraq are serious questions, and they demand seriousness and reason from those who would grapple with them. Senator Lugar's statement reflects that thoughtfulness, reflects that reason, in the midst of a debate which has all too often been characterized by a lack of those characteristics.

Look at this administration, which too often communicates not with reason but with slogans and sound bites: ``Stay the course.'' ``Global war on terror.'' ``Cut and run.'' ``Precipitous withdrawal.'' People watching this continuing debate, mark when you hear the phrase ``precipitous withdrawal.'' You are hearing the end of reason, and sloganeering. This is no service to the people of our country, not when serious and difficult problems must be solved. Just look where this slogan leadership has gotten us so far. It is a dishonor roll of failure: weapons of mass destruction, nonexistent; occupation planning, incompetence; reconstruction efforts, failed; the strain on our troops and their families, disabling; the treatment of our wounded troops, disgraceful; expenditures, massive; fraud, run rampant; the confidence of the American people, forfeited after cascades of false optimism and phony good news.

It is time, as Senator Lugar's words exemplify, to pursue intelligent, thoughtful, and realistic decisions about our course in Iraq, decisions that will protect our national interest. It is time to put the slogans away and thoughtfully extricate ourselves from a disastrous mess.

I hope we can take these steps forward in the Senate together. I am encouraged that several Republican friends have stated clearly that they cannot support the President's failed course in Iraq and are seeking real change.

As I have said many times in this Chamber, our strategy to effect change in Iraq requires the rapid and responsible redeployment of our troops. As I told the President directly when I met with him several months ago, I see the prospect of U.S. redeployment as the most powerful force at our disposal in this conflict now. That prospect of redeployment of American troops will eliminate the insurgents' argument that America is an occupying army, taking away from them a powerful recruiting tool for militant extremists. It will spur Iraq's political leaders to step forward, to quit slow-walking us through their own civil war and take responsibility for the security and governance of their own country. It will confront neighboring nations with a real impetus to assume more positive roles in assuring the region's stability. It will help restore the faith of the world in the leadership, the integrity, the good judgment, and the good will of our great country.

The President's surge plan is not the new direction Americans are calling for. It is a tactic--a tactic that can only be effective as part of a larger coherent strategy. And strategy, in turn, largely depends on whether the overarching dynamic works in America's favor. In this regard, America is presently on the worst possible footing.

A redeployment of our troops creates the potential to change this overarching dynamic for the better, freeing us to focus on more effective strategies to counter al-Qaida and to stabilize the region. Iraqi leaders will have to reach compromises with each other because their vision for their country's future will no longer be drawn with a major U.S. military presence in it. In the time it will take to bring our massive deployment of troops home, we can send a clear signal to Iraqi leaders and to Iraq's neighbors that America is standing down and it is time for them to stand up. We can help them do that.

This is a critical step, and thoughtful, reasoned, political, and diplomatic leadership will be essential to take advantage of the new dynamic a redeployment offers. I will confess that I am deeply troubled that this administration may not have the credibility it needs to accomplish this difficult task, even if it were of a mind to try.

This Congress can help set favorable conditions for executive action. We cannot legislate diligence, we cannot legislate thoughtfulness, we cannot legislate competence, and it is not clear that this administration is viewed as capable of those qualities any longer. It may take new faces and new voices to represent our country credibly in this process. Fortunately, there are many talented and accomplished people in this country whose perspectives and experience can help build America's credibility and prestige around the world. It will be a significant diplomatic challenge, but it presents a significant-- perhaps historic--diplomatic opportunity.

That executive responsibility--the need to put ourselves in that diplomatic arena--does not relieve us in the Senate of our duty to continue to press forcefully on behalf of the millions of Americans who demanded a change in Iraq, to apply reason, thought, and our best care and judgment to a problem that has not yielded to sloganeering. We will keep the pressure on this President and his administration, whose inability to admit failure is leading our precious Nation deeper and deeper into disaster in Iraq.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 26, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in closed session to receive an updated briefing from the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 26, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The hearing on the Impact of Media Violence on Children hearing will focus on issues related to the impact of violent television programming on children, including issues raised by the recently released Federal Communications Commission (FCC) report, Violent Television Programming and Its Impact on Children.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 26, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to consider the preparedness of Federal land management agencies for the 2007 wildfire season and to consider recent reports on the agencies' efforts to contain the costs of wildfire management activities has been rescheduled.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 26, 2007, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing to receive testimony on Smithsonian Institution governance reform and a report by the Smithsonian's Independent Review Committee.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for a markup of S. 1671 ``Entrepreneurial Development Act of 2007,'' S. 1622 ``Small Business Venture Capital Act of 2007,'' and other pending business on Tuesday, June 26, 2007, beginning at 10 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 26, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 26, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Ending Mortgage Abuse: Safeguarding Homebuyers.''

If I may, but it is to a different amendment. It is for the Cardin amendment.

That will be fine.

I thank Senators Bingaman and Thune for their courtesy. I am here today to express my support for an amendment sponsored by my colleague, Senator Cardin, regarding State approval for liquefied natural gas terminals. I am a cosponsor of this important bipartisan amendment with Senators Mikulski, Snowe, Dodd, Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, Lieberman, and my senior Senator, Jack Reed of Rhode Island.

Our country is grappling with a serious and difficult question: how to meet our growing energy needs without depleting our natural resources, threatening our environment or endangering our people.

I strongly support the work of Senators Boxer and Bingaman, with many of our colleagues, to take a significant step forward in our use of alternative and renewable fuels. But as we develop these new and emerging fuel sources, we must take great care to balance our need for energy with other imperatives.

Liquefied natural gas is rapidly assuming a larger share of the overall natural gas market. Over 40 new LNG terminals are now proposed for construction, many of which are planned near heavily populated areas or environmentally sensitive coastal areas. Unfortunately, in their haste to expand this market, the LNG industry and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have dismissed the risks this poses to public safety and the environment. I am particularly concerned about a proposed LNG terminal in Fall River, MA, a town of nearly 100,000 people, barely over the State line from Rhode Island.

This is Rhode Island's treasured Narragansett Bay. The Bay is used, particularly on beautiful summer days such as today, for commercial and recreational boating and fishing. Tens of thousands of Rhode Islanders live along its shores, and our Bay is in many ways the economic heart, as well as the environmental and recreational heart, of our ocean State.

Now, to reach the LNG facility proposed for Fall River, LNG tankers would have to navigate 21 nautical miles through Narragansett Bay, passing directly by the homes and businesses of 64,000 Rhode Island residents. Along the way, tankers would pass under four heavily trafficked bridges and execute what the Coast Guard itself recently described as extremely challenging navigational maneuvers, as many as 130 times per year.

Moreover, the tanker requires a security zone around it as it proceeds through the Bay. Here is the tanker. This is the size of the security zone it requires, completely occupying the east passage going up through Narragansett Bay between Newport and Jamestown. It would displace all recreational boaters and other cargo boats and disrupt bridge traffic as it transits.

The residents of my State of Rhode Island have spoken loudly and in large numbers against the LNG terminal proposed for Fall River. I have heard their deep concern about the environmental and security risks posed by LNG tankers passing so close to their homes and communities. Yet their voices have not been heard adequately in the current process for permitting LNG terminals.

This amendment would help correct this flaw and give all States and communities the seat at the table they deserve, by requiring the concurrence of affected States for permits to build liquefied natural gas terminals.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Missouri for her remarks. Like her, I have been appointed and elected as a U.S. attorney and as an attorney general. I ask all of my colleagues who are listening to take her at her word. Prosecutors across the country are horrified about what has happened. I applaud Senator Schumer for what he has done to push this forward.

The Senate has an important oversight role. We have advice and consent responsibilities, and we have a Judiciary Committee on which Senator Schumer and I serve. I tell you, the U.S. Department of Justice is a precious institution in our democracy. It is under siege from within, and we need to take some action.

This resolution is not about partisanship. It is not about scoring political points. It is about two very important things--one, letting the people of America know we care about an honest, independent, and truthful Department of Justice. That is not meaningless. It is also about letting the career people within the Department of Justice know that we hear them, we care about them, we know what has been done to this Department is shameful; that this ordeal for them will one day be over, and we will work hard as people who care about this country and about the Department of Justice to make that day come soon, so that once again truth and justice can be the stars that guide the Department of Justice. That, too, is not meaningless.

Madam President, the bill of particulars against Attorney General Gonzales is long. First is the fact that he does not respect the institution he leads. Time-honored traditions and practices of the Department, vital to the impartial administration of justice, have been gravely damaged or destroyed on his watch.

One, U.S. attorneys used to come from their home districts, where they were accountable to local people, where they knew the judges and the law enforcement officers. Not under this Attorney General. Now they fly them in from Washington where they will do President Bush's bidding.

Two, U.S. attorneys were always put up for advice and consent. Not under this Attorney General. He presided over the statutory circumvention of our Senate confirmation process.

Three, the list of people at the White House and the DOJ who used to be able to talk about cases with each other recently included only four people at the White House and only three at the DOJ. Not under this Attorney General, where 417 White House officials, including Karl Rove, can now have these formerly illicit conversations with the Department of Justice.

Four, career attorneys were kept free of partisan interference. Not under this Attorney General. There are politics in the Honors Program, politics in career official appointments, politics in personnel evaluations, and politics in the appointment of immigration judges.

Five, U.S. attorneys were almost always left in place to do their jobs once they were appointed, knowing that they had a higher calling than their political appointment. Not under this Attorney General. Simply put, a man who doesn't care about those institutions of the Department of Justice is the wrong person to lead it back out of the mess he has put it in.

He has politicized this Department to a degree not seen since the Nixon administration--U.S. attorneys fired for political reasons, with White House fingerprints all over the place, and Karl Rove and others passing on information to the Department of Justice about voter fraud to pump up interest in cases. DOJ policy is ignored, with no justification; written policy was ignored to bring indictments on the eve of a critical election in the State of Missouri; the White House Counsel chastising a U.S. attorney over mishandling a case. How does the White House Counsel know whether a DOJ attorney mishandled the case? Who is telling him what is going on in the DOJ? The DOJ even invented the position of White House Liaison--first time ever--who, by her own admission, screened applicants based on inappropriate and probably illegal political factors.

Third, the Attorney General has set the bar for his office far too low. His stated definition of what is improper for him and his staff, believe it or not, tracks the legal standard for criminal obstruction of justice. Is that the kind of Attorney General we want? Is that the kind of accountability to himself we want? The Attorney General should do a lot better than that.

There has been an almost unbelievable series of half-truths and obfuscations coming out of the Attorney General and his circle. They told us that the firings of U.S. attorneys were performance related. Not true. They told us the Attorney General was not involved and didn't discuss the plan to fire U.S. attorneys. Not true. They told us the White House was not involved. Not true. They told us these EARS performance evaluations were not relevant. Not true. They told us the Attorney General didn't discuss the substance of the testimony with other witnesses during the investigation. Not true. They told us the Chief of Staff of the Deputy Attorney General never made threatening calls to U.S. attorneys who were going to publicly discuss the matter. Again, not true.

How many times can the Department of Justice say things that are not true?

Fifth, the hypocrisy is almost unbelievable. The Attorney General's own incompetence and misjudgments fail the very test he claimed he set for the fired U.S. attorneys. As one of my colleagues said to Attorney General Gonzales at his hearing, ``Why should you not be judged by the same standards at which you judged these dismissed U.S. Attorneys?''

Madam President, our Attorney General would fail that standard. How can he oversee our Federal Bureau of Investigation when the FBI Director had to warn FBI agents guarding the Attorney General not to obey his instructions, when he was White House Counsel scurrying over to the ailing Attorney General's hospital room to try to get his signature on a document?

You can say this is just a partisan exercise, but it may take a decade to repair the damage Attorney General Gonzales has caused. Every day that passes without his resignation is one more day before the repair has begun. From the perspective of the Bush administration, I can see how a wounded, grateful Attorney General on a very short leash may be just as they want as they try to exit Washington without further indictments. But that is not the Attorney General America needs to maintain the best traditions of the Department of Justice through administration and administration and administration, through Republicans and Democrats alike, and to ensure the fair administration of justice in our country.

As a former U.S. attorney who has profound respect for the Department of Justice and its thousands of career employees, I believe America deserves an Attorney General who will lead by example, who will set the very highest standard for himself and his staff, who will do his best to keep politics out of the justice system and will restore the country's faith and confidence in one of its most important institutions.

Please set aside politics and let us stand up for the Department of Justice. Let us restore a vital institution in American life. Please let us vote for

cloture and proceed to do what our duty calls for us to do.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I would yield to the request of the Senator from Texas.

Madam President, this is my first time speaking on the floor since the passing of our colleague, Senator Thomas. I know we are all very conscious of the desk draped in black across the way, next to Senator Cornyn. I extend my condolences to his many friends, my many esteemed colleagues who knew and admired Senator Thomas and mourn his loss and know he will be sorely missed by his friends in the Senate and his friends and family in his native State of Wyoming.

Amendment No. 1184

I rise today to address amendment No. 1184 offered by my friend from Texas, my former attorney general colleague, Senator Cornyn.

I will oppose this amendment. It is not entirely without merit in every one of its many dimensions, but it would undercut the fundamental principles of due process which are a longstanding and vital hallmark of our legal system. I fully support the creation of new grounds for inadmissibility to the United States for convicted sex offenders, gang members, repeat DUI offenders, and for individuals who have been convicted of firearms offenses and domestic violence. I have prosecuted these crimes. I have a firsthand understanding of how dangerous these criminals are. Simply stated, America's doors should not be opened to people who commit such crimes. If Senator Cornyn believes there are loopholes, I am happy to plug them, although I would note that the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, the President, and others seem satisfied.

For that reason, I will support the alternative amendment offered by Senator Kennedy which would add these offenses and others to the grounds for inadmissibility.

There is a right way to ensure dangerous criminals don't enter the country and there is a wrong way. Unfortunately, the amendment we are debating goes about it the wrong way. Let me explain.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, good moral character is a prerequisite for a variety of benefits and privileges, the most important being naturalization. Therefore, the law lists a series of characteristics which exclude a person from the definition of ``good moral character'': for example, a person whose income is derived principally from gambling or one who has given false testimony for the purpose of obtaining benefits or one who has been convicted of an aggravated felony. This, of course, makes perfect sense. These individuals as a general rule should not get on a path to naturalization.

But this amendment would change the definition of ``good moral character'' in a very novel and unsettling way: It would exclude from that definition one who the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General determines, in the unreviewable discretion of the Secretary or the Attorney General, to have been at any time an alien described in section 212(a)(3) or 237(a)(4). These sections list a series of security-related grounds under which

an alien is excludable or deportable. Those grounds, sensibly enough, include espionage, sabotage, terrorist activity, and any other unlawful activity. Anyone convicted of such offenses or even indicted for such offenses should be, of course, excludable. But that is not what this amendment says. This amendment would give the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General unreviewable discretion to make a determination as to good moral character.

First, as I have previously said, I am not inclined to expand the powers of the current Attorney General in any substantive way, much less to expand his power to make important unreviewable decisions. Setting aside my grave hesitation about this particular Attorney General, as a general rule, I don't believe we ought to prevent judges from reviewing important decisions which can affect life, liberty, and property. This would violate one of the most fundamental principles of American democracy--judicial review, a principle we have honored for centuries.

The second issue is even more unsettling. That is, under the proposed amendment, a person could be determined to lack ``good moral character'' if the unreviewable decision is made that he or she is ``described in'' these two specific sections of the immigration code.

``Described in,'' what exactly does it mean to be ``described in'' a statute? Not ``convicted'' under a statute, not ``in violation'' of a statute, not ``indicted'' under a statute but merely ``described in'' it.

Who knows what it means? I have found no precedent for this formulation. Is it consistent with American values to grant the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security the unreviewable discretion to say that a person is ``described in'' those statutes; the unreviewable power to say that somebody is engaged in ``unlawful activity''; and the unreviewable power to then deny them the benefits and privileges of American law?

That is not my experience as a prosecutor. I found due process to be important and valuable.

The amendment does not stop there. It would allow this unreviewable discretion to be based on evidence which the accused would never have the opportunity to confront.

Madam President, like you, I have spent my professional life in the American legal system, a good deal of it I spent as a U.S. attorney and as an attorney general. My experience is that our American system of law stands on some fundamental principles, among them that people can be aware of the charges brought against them, that people have an opportunity to confront the evidence used against them, that the prosecution and the judge are not rolled into one, and that we have judicial review of important decisions affecting people's rights and privileges. These are basic principles, and they represent core American values.

I do not know why we have to keep getting up to defend this. This is bedrock stuff. From the suspension of habeas corpus, to the administration's legal defense of torture, to ``extraordinary rendition,'' and so on, we have seen relentless efforts to chip away at bedrock principles of American law. With this amendment, there they go again.

Of course, we must do everything proper and necessary to protect our borders and keep Americans safe. But to throw out the separation between prosecution and judge, to throw out the opportunity to understand and explain evidence used against you, to throw out our ancient principle of judicial review, to allow Government officials to take away rights and privileges without answering to anyone? I do not think so.

These principles are too dear to be thrown away so lightly. Our country has been through a lot over the years, and these principles have survived and flourished, to lie today in our hands, in our stewardship, to protect and to pass on, as they were passed on to us.

I do not think this immigration issue is so terrifying that we need to throw these principles away now over immigration. We are made of sterner stuff than that.

I ask my colleagues to oppose Senator Cornyn's amendment No. 1184.

I thank Senator Kennedy, and I yield the floor.

Good morning, Mr. President.

On behalf of Senator Coburn, I call up amendment No. 1311 and ask that the amendment be modified with the changes at the desk and then be set aside.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 223, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.