[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5947-5959]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                IMPROVING AMERICA'S SECURITY ACT OF 2007

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 4, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 4) to make the United States more secure by 
     implementing unfinished recommendations of the 9/11 
     Commission to fight the war on terror more effectively, to 
     improve homeland security, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid amendment No. 275, in the nature of a substitute.
       Sununu amendment No. 291 (to amendment No. 275), to ensure 
     that the emergency communications and interoperability 
     communications grant program does not exclude Internet 
     protocol-based interoperable solutions.
       Salazar/Lieberman modified amendment No. 290 (to amendment 
     No. 275), to require a quadrennial homeland security review.
       Dorgan/Conrad amendment No. 313 (to amendment No. 275), to 
     require a report to Congress on the hunt for Osama bin Laden, 
     Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the leadership of al-Qaida.
       Landrieu amendment No. 321 (to amendment No. 275), to 
     require the Secretary of Homeland Security to include levees 
     in the list of critical infrastructure sectors.
       Landrieu amendment No. 296 (to amendment No. 275), to 
     permit the cancellation of certain loans under the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.
       Landrieu modified amendment No. 295 (to amendment No. 275), 
     to provide adequate funding for local governments harmed by 
     Hurricane Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005.
       Allard amendment No. 272 (to amendment No. 275), to prevent 
     the fraudulent use of social security account numbers by 
     allowing the sharing of Social Security data among agencies 
     of the United States for identity theft prevention and 
     immigration enforcement purposes.
       McConnell (for Sessions) amendment No. 305 (to amendment 
     No. 275), to clarify the voluntary inherent authority of 
     States to assist in the enforcement of the immigration laws 
     of the United States and to require the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security to provide information related to aliens found to 
     have violated certain immigration laws to the National Crime 
     Information Center.
       McConnell (for Cornyn) amendment No. 310 (to amendment No. 
     275), to strengthen the Federal Government's ability to 
     detain dangerous criminal aliens, including murderers, 
     rapists, and child molesters, until they can be removed from 
     the United States.
       McConnell (for Cornyn) amendment No. 311 (to amendment No. 
     275), to provide for immigration injunction reform.
       McConnell (for Cornyn) modified amendment No. 312 (to 
     amendment No. 275), to prohibit the recruitment of persons to 
     participate in terrorism, to clarify that the revocation of 
     an alien's visa or other documentation is not subject to 
     judicial review, to strengthen the Federal Government's 
     ability to detain dangerous criminal aliens, including 
     murderers, rapists, and child molesters, until they can be 
     removed from the United States, to prohibit the rewarding of 
     suicide bombings and allow adequate punishments for terrorist 
     murders, kidnappings, and sexual assaults.
       McConnell (for Kyl) modified amendment No. 317 (to 
     amendment No. 275), to prohibit the rewarding of suicide 
     bombings and allow adequate punishments for terrorist 
     murders, kidnappings, and sexual assaults.
       McConnell (for Kyl) amendment No. 318 (to amendment No. 
     275), to protect classified information.
       McConnell (for Kyl) amendment No. 319 (to amendment No. 
     275), to provide for relief from (a)(3)(B) immigration bars 
     from the Hmong and other groups who do not pose a threat to 
     the United States, to designate the Taliban as a terrorist 
     organization for immigration purposes.
       McConnell (for Kyl) amendment No. 320 (to amendment No. 
     275), to improve the Classified Information Procedures Act.
       McConnell (for Grassley) amendment No. 300 (to amendment 
     No. 275), to clarify the revocation of an alien's visa or 
     other documentation is not subject to judicial review.
       McConnell (for Grassley) amendment No. 309 (to amendment 
     No. 275), to improve the prohibitions on money laundering.
       Thune amendment No. 308 (to amendment No. 275), to expand 
     and improve the Proliferation Security Initiative while 
     protecting the national security interests of the United 
     States.
       Cardin amendment No. 326 (to amendment No. 275), to provide 
     for a study of modification of area of jurisdiction of Office 
     of National Capital Region Coordination.
       Cardin amendment No. 327 (to amendment No. 275), to reform 
     mutual aid agreements for the National Capital Region.
       Cardin modified amendment No. 328 (to amendment No. 275), 
     to require Amtrak contracts and leases involving the State of 
     Maryland to be governed by the laws of the District of 
     Columbia.
       Schumer/Clinton amendment No. 336 (to amendment No. 275), 
     to prohibit the use of the peer review process in determining 
     the allocation of funds among metropolitan areas applying for 
     grants under the Urban Area Security Initiative.
       Schumer/Clinton amendment No. 337 (to amendment No. 275), 
     to provide for the use of funds in any grant under the 
     Homeland Security Grant Program for personnel costs.
       Coburn amendment No. 325 (to amendment No. 275), to ensure 
     the fiscal integrity of grants awarded by the Department of 
     Homeland Security.
       Sessions amendment No. 347 (to amendment No. 275), to 
     express the sense of the Congress regarding the funding of 
     Senate-approved construction of fencing and vehicle barriers 
     along the southwest border of the United States.
       Coburn amendment No. 301 (to amendment No. 275), to 
     prohibit grant recipients under grant programs administered 
     by the Department from expending funds until the Secretary 
     has reported to Congress that risk assessments of all 
     programs and activities have been performed and completed, 
     improper payments have been estimated, and corrective action 
     plans have been developed and reported as required under the 
     Improper Payments Act of 2002 (31 U.S.C. 3321 note).
       Coburn amendment No. 294 (to amendment No. 275), to provide 
     that the provisions of the act shall cease to have any force 
     or effect on and after December 31, 2012, to ensure 
     congressional review and oversight of the act.
       Lieberman (for Menendez) amendment No. 354 (to amendment 
     No. 275), to improve the security of cargo containers 
     destined for the United States.
       Specter amendment No. 286 (to amendment No. 275), to 
     restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United 
     States.
       Kyl modified amendment No. 357 (to amendment No. 275), to 
     amend the data-mining technology reporting requirement to 
     avoid revealing existing patents, trade secrets, and 
     confidential business processes, and to adopt a narrower 
     definition of data- mining in order to exclude routine 
     computer searches.
       Ensign amendment No. 363 (to amendment No. 275), to 
     establish a Law Enforcement Assistance Force in the 
     Department of Homeland Security to facilitate the 
     contributions of retired law enforcement officers during 
     major disasters.
       Biden amendment No. 383 (to amendment No. 275), to require 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop regulations 
     regarding the transportation of high hazard materials.
       Biden amendment No. 384 (to amendment No. 275), to 
     establish a Homeland Security and Neighborhood Safety Trust 
     Fund and refocus Federal priorities toward securing the 
     Homeland.
       Bunning amendment No. 334 (to amendment No. 275), to amend 
     title 49, United States Code, to modify the authorities 
     relating to Federal flight deck officers.
       Schumer modified amendment No. 367 (to amendment No. 275), 
     to require the Administrator of the Transportation Security 
     Administration to establish and implement a program to 
     provide additional safety measures for vehicles that carry 
     high hazardous materials.
       Schumer amendment No. 366 (to amendment No. 275), to 
     restrict the authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
     to issue a license authorizing the export to a recipient 
     country of highly enriched uranium for medical isotope 
     production.
       Wyden amendment No. 348 (to amendment No. 275), to require 
     that a redacted version of the Executive Summary of the 
     Office of Inspector General Report on Central Intelligence 
     Agency Accountability Regarding Findings and Conclusions of 
     the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities 
     Before and After the Terrorist Attacks

[[Page 5948]]

     of September 11, 2001, is made available to the public.
       Bond/Rockefeller amendment No. 389 (to amendment No. 275), 
     to provide the sense of the Senate that the Committee on 
     Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Select 
     Committee on Intelligence of the Senate should submit a 
     report on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission with 
     respect to intelligence reform and congressional intelligence 
     oversight reform.
       Stevens amendment No. 299 (to amendment No. 275), to 
     authorize NTIA to borrow against anticipated receipts of the 
     Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Fund to 
     initiate migration to a national IP-enabled emergency network 
     capable of receiving and responding to all citizen-activated 
     emergency communications.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is 
recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, how much time remains under the current 
order?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Four and a half minutes is 
remaining before the vote.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the majority leader and I agree about one 
thing: Securing America ought to be about doing just that and not about 
politics. But, unfortunately, the majority has demonstrated its 
interest in rewarding unions by providing a provision for collective 
bargaining for the Transportation Security Administration in this bill 
which elevates the union rights of the Transportation Security 
Administration over the national security and safety of the American 
people.
  So we should not be fooled by the rhetoric or the attempt of the 
majority leader to stand behind the 9/11 families. Unfortunately, I 
fear these 9/11 families are being manipulated for political purposes 
in order to justify promoting the union rights of Transportation 
Security Administration workers, which will hinder the safety and 
security of the flying public. This 9/11 bill should be about 
strengthening security, not about unions.
  Mr. President, I have another letter from 9/11 Families for a Secure 
America to Senator McConnell, which I ask unanimous consent be printed 
in the Record after my comments.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this letter says:

       On behalf of 9/11 Families for a Secure America, an 
     organization representing the families of 300 victims of the 
     9/11 attacks, we would like to thank you for your recent 
     efforts to ensure and enhance America's security.

  This letter goes on and will be part of the Record.
  But I simply do not understand why the majority leader objects to our 
ability to have an up-or-down vote on whether dangerous criminal aliens 
who are currently being released into the population--because under a 
2001 Supreme Court decision, they cannot be held more than 6 months 
pending deportation--why he would object to an up-or-down vote on that 
amendment.
  We started off this year with the majority leader and those in the 
new majority saying they wanted to work with Republicans in a 
bipartisan way to try to do what was important for the American people. 
Nothing is more important than the safety and security of the American 
people. But why, 6 years after this 2001 Supreme Court decision, the 
majority insists on allowing this condition to exist, where dangerous 
criminal aliens are released into the American population to commit 
additional crimes, is beyond me. That is not about safety and security.
  Frankly, the comments I heard this morning which say that somehow 
this is being politicized are just not correct. If anything, the 
majority has demonstrated that their desire to promote union rights as 
a reward for political support in the last election dominates their 
thinking on this bill. It is unfortunate.
  I hope that if, indeed, that provision, which I do believe in all 
sincerity will impair the safety and security of the American people, 
is included in this bill once it is taken to conference, I hope the 
President follows through on his promise to veto the bill because it 
will not elevate but, rather, it will diminish the safety and security 
of the American people.
  So I regret, Mr. President, that the majority leader has obstructed 
the ability of the U.S. Senate to have a full and fair debate on these 
important national security amendments. Frankly, the reasons for not 
allowing that just do not stand up to scrutiny.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                                               9/11 Families for a


                                               Secure America,

                                                    March 8, 2007.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Senate Minority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McConnell: On behalf of 
     9/11 Families for a Secure America, an organization 
     representing the families of 300 victims of the 9/11 attacks, 
     we would like to thank you for your recent efforts to ensure 
     and enhance America's security.
       As the parents of two men who lost their lives in the World 
     Trade Center attacks, we take the recommendations of the 9/11 
     Commission more seriously than most. When President Bush 
     threatened to veto the 9/11 bill over a provision related to 
     airport security screeners, we were pleased by your efforts 
     to strip the provision to ensure a presidential signature.
       We also appreciate your recent efforts to implement a 
     number of new policies aimed at closing dangerous loopholes 
     in existing security law. We represent an organization that 
     advocates strengthening our borders as a way of improving 
     national security, and your proposals would do just that. As 
     you know, current law prevents us from holding dangerous 
     illegal immigrants and from deporting anyone whose visa has 
     been revoked for terrorist-related reasons. These loopholes 
     must be closed.
       Those who would use the 9/11 bill as a vehicle for 
     political patronage and stall its passage in the process do 
     not have America's security interests at heart. Nor do those 
     who would block a vote on measures aimed at securing our 
     borders by screening those who come here illegally. Thank you 
     for keeping faith with those of us who have made the security 
     of this country a real priority. Your efforts are greatly 
     appreciated.
           Yours sincerely,
                                                    Joan Molinaro,
     Treasurer, 9/11 Families for a Secure America, Mother of Carl 
                                                   Molinaro, FDNY.
                                                     Peter Gadiel,
     President, 9/11 FSA, Father of James Gadiel, WTC North Tower 
                                                      103rd floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order and 
pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending 
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on pending 
     amendment No. 312, as modified, to amendment No. 275 to 
     Calendar No. 57, S. 4, a bill to make the United States more 
     secure by implementing unfinished recommendations of the 9/11 
     Commission to fight the war on terror more effectively, to 
     improve homeland security, and for other purposes.
         John Cornyn, Jon Kyl, Mike Crapo, John Ensign, Saxby 
           Chambliss, Judd Gregg, Richard Burr, Jim Bunning, Sam 
           Brownback, Mitch McConnell, Craig Thomas, Tom Coburn, 
           Wayne Allard, Jim DeMint, John Thune, Pat Roberts, 
           Lindsey Graham.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory 
quorum call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 312, as modified, offered by Mr. McConnell of Kentucky, 
to S. 4, a bill to make the United States more secure by implementing 
unfinished recommendations of the 9/11 Commission more effectively, to 
improve homeland security, and for other purposes, shall be brought to 
a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) 
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Burr), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 49, as follows:

[[Page 5949]]



                      [Rollcall Vote No. 68 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--49

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Brownback
     Burr
     Dodd
     Johnson
     McCain
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the 
nays are 49. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on 
the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                             Cloture Motion

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order and 
pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the following 
cloture motion which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the Reid 
     substitute amendment No. 275 to S. 4, the 9/11 Commission 
     legislation.
         Joe Lieberman, Charles Schumer, Robert Menendez, Patty 
           Murray, Dianne Feinstein, B.A. Mikulski, Christopher 
           Dodd, Joe Biden, Debbie Stabenow, Harry Reid, Pat 
           Leahy, Dick Durbin, Jeff Bingaman, H.R. Clinton, Bill 
           Nelson, Tom Carper, Jack Reed.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory 
quorum call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 275, offered by Mr. Reid of Nevada, to S. 4, a bill to 
make the United States more secure by implementing unfinished 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission to fight the war on terror more 
effectively, to improve homeland security, and for other purposes, 
shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) 
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Burr), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 69, nays 26, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 69 Leg.]

                                YEAS--69

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Tester
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--26

     Allard
     Bunning
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Brownback
     Burr
     Dodd
     Johnson
     McCain
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 69, the 
nays are 26. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having 
voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
cloture motion on the bill be vitiated; that the bill be read a third 
time, and a vote occur on final passage on Tuesday, March 13, 
immediately upon the disposition of the substitute amendment; that when 
the Senate convenes on Tuesday, March 13, and resumes consideration of 
the bill, all time under cloture be considered expired and the Senate 
immediately begin voting on those pending germane amendments; further, 
that during Monday's legislative session, the provisions of rule XXII 
shall not bar a motion to proceed made by the majority leader.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I think this is a fair agreement that 
will allow us to finish the bill on Tuesday, and I have no objection.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? The Chair hears 
none, and it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this means that there will be no 
further rollcall votes today, there will be no rollcall votes on 
Monday, and we would resume voting on the germane amendments on Tuesday 
morning next week.
  Our staffs will continue to be available to negotiate with our 
colleagues on a consent list of amendments that are agreed to by all 
concerned. In fact, we have a list now approaching 20 amendments where 
there is such agreement, but there are one or two individual Senators 
concerned that their amendments are not on that list and they are 
objecting to the overall consent. We hope very much that can be worked 
out and we can, in any case, move to final passage next Tuesday.
  Mr. President, I briefly wish to thank my ranking member, Senator 
Collins, for her extraordinary contribution to this bill and her 
cooperation. As you know, we have had many ups and downs about the many 
amendments, agreements, objections, et cetera, but I am very pleased to 
say that the bill, as it came out of our committee, was nonpartisan, 
with a 16-to-0 vote, and one abstention, thus remaining essentially 
intact. That is the good news.
  I hope some of the amendments that have been agreed to by almost 
everybody on both sides can be added to make the bill even stronger as 
we go to conference.
  I thank our colleagues for their contributions and for some good 
debate. This is a subject of urgent importance to the American people. 
It is completing the unfinished work that the 
9/11 Commission gave us, it is building on all we accomplished in the 
9/11 legislation of 2004, and it will, in a very direct way, make the 
American people safer both from potential terrorist attack and from the 
inevitable natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina.
  I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor to my ranking member at 
this time.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, this is a very important bill. Many of 
the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission were enacted as part of the 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which the 
distinguished Senator from Connecticut and I have

[[Page 5950]]

worked so hard to author. But there is some unfinished business, and 
this bill will help make our country safer and it will strengthen our 
protections against terrorist attacks.
  As always, it has been a great pleasure to work with the Senator from 
Connecticut, whose leadership I so admire. I am optimistic we have now 
finally put this important bill on a path to completion, and I look 
forward to working to accomplish that goal on Tuesday.
  I thank the Chair.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, though I 
am not sure if that motion has gone through, I wanted to ask the 
leaders, who have managed this bill so well, if they are familiar with 
amendment Nos. 295 and 296, relative to very urgent requests by the 
Gulf Coast States, one for loan forgiveness and one for the 10-percent 
waiver? Are the two leaders willing to say they are both supportive of 
these amendments and will continue to try over the weekend to get both 
these amendments up by unanimous consent?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Louisiana, 
the amendment on loan forgiveness is on the consent list. As the 
Senator knows, for reasons that are certainly perplexing to me, most 
everybody here seems to agree on the 10-percent forgiveness for the 
gulf coast based on Hurricane Katrina because of the extraordinary 
economic impact the storm had on both governments and people and 
businesses in the gulf coast. There is very broad support, but there 
continue to be objections, as the Senator knows. I regret that, and I 
hope we can find a way to overcome those between now and next Tuesday.
  The Senator from Louisiana also knows there is an amendment on levees 
that is germane, and that will be one of the amendments that is up 
either for a vote or passage by consent on Tuesday because it remains 
relevant and germane after cloture.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator for his support.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, if the Senator from Louisiana will yield 
so I may respond to her question.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield.
  Ms. COLLINS. The Senator from Louisiana has been tireless in her 
advocacy for both of these amendments. The junior Senator from 
Louisiana has also talked to me about these amendments, as has the 
Senator from Florida, Mr. Martinez. I have been working hard with the 
chairman to try to address the concerns of the Senators from Louisiana.
  As the chairman has indicated, there is good news on one of the 
Senator's amendments. The amendment that proposes the loan forgiveness 
authority for the President is on the list of amendments we are 
optimistic about clearing on Tuesday. The other amendment, with the 10-
percent match eliminated, is more problematic because there are some 
outstanding objections to it.
  I know the Senator from Louisiana has indicated a willingness to 
amend her amendment and put a 2-year sunset on that provision. That 
helps a great deal with one of the objections we have on our side of 
the aisle. I don't know whether we are going to be able to clear the 
other objections, but I certainly pledge to keep working with the 
Senator from Louisiana and the committee's chairman to accomplish that 
goal.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank all our colleagues, and I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Trade Policy

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, last November, voters in my State of Ohio 
spoke out for change. Their call echoed across this country, as middle-
class, working, and low-income families claimed ownership of their 
Government.
  For too long, our Government betrayed their values. The drug 
companies wrote the Medicare law, the oil companies dictated energy 
policy, and large multinational corporations pushed job-killing trade 
agreements through the House and the Senate.
  In my home State of Ohio, trade in particular was the focus for 
change in last year's election. Years of job-killing trade agreements 
are taking their toll on workers and small businesses alike. Two years 
ago, the largest ever bipartisan fair trade coalition was formed to 
oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement--the dysfunctional 
cousin of the fundamentally flawed North American Free Trade Agreement.
  Forced through the House in the middle of the night by one vote, 
CAFTA did not pass on its merits. So flawed is CAFTA that to this day, 
nearly 2 years later, it has still not been fully implemented.
  The question is not if we trade but how we trade and who benefits 
from trade. Unfettered free trade has afforded multinational 
corporations and morally bankrupt countries windfall profits on the 
backs of often slave, sweatshop, or even child labor. Proponents of 
unfettered free trade use words such as ``protectionism'' to hide their 
shameful practices, to mask agreements that trade in human suffering 
and economic destruction, and to simply try to push away their 
opponents' arguments.
  I am pleased to say this Congress is not only committed to build on 
the efforts of the fair trade coalition, we are already at work 
changing trade policy. Earlier this year, Senator Dorgan, Senator 
Graham, and I introduced legislation that would ban sweatshop labor. We 
shed light on the injustice of allowing China to enjoy permanent normal 
trade relations in the WTO while allowing the degradation of 
environmental and labor standards on massive scales.
  In the coming months, Congress will debate fast-track negotiations 
due to expire this summer. It is clear this administration has little 
desire--has little desire--to change direction on trade, so it is up to 
Congress to chart a new course for the future of U.S. trade policy.
  Fair trade is not just about doing the right thing for small 
business, doing the right thing for manufacturing, doing the right 
thing for workers; it means investing in entire communities.
  Our middle class is shrinking. Our policies in Washington have 
betrayed the values of working families across this country--in Ohio 
and Rhode Island, all over this country--which is why we must revamp 
our economic trade policies and invest in our middle class. We must 
shrink income inequality, grow our business community, and create good-
paying jobs. We must establish trade policy that builds on our economic 
security.
  Job loss does not just affect the worker who has lost her job or that 
worker's family. Job loss, especially job loss in the thousands, 
devastates communities. It hurts the local business owner--the 
drugstore, the grocery store, the neighborhood restaurant. When people 
are out of work, they cannot support their local economy, which forces 
owners to close their small businesses. That means lost revenues to the 
community, which hurts schools, fire departments, and police 
departments.
  The trade policies we set here and negotiated across the globe have a 
direct impact on places such as Toledo and Steubenville and Cleveland 
and Middletown. We hear the word ``protectionist'' thrown around by 
those who insist on more of the same failed trade models. It is 
considered ``protectionist'' by them when they characterize those of us 
who are fighting for labor and environmental standards, but they call 
it ``free trade'' to protect drug company patents and Hollywood films.

[[Page 5951]]

  If we can protect intellectual property rights, as we should, with 
enforceable provisions in trade agreements, we absolutely can do the 
same for labor, the environment, and food safety.
  In my home State of Ohio, we have a talented and hard-working labor 
force and an entrepreneurial spirit that needs only the investment 
dollars and commitment from Government to realize their economic 
potential.
  Oberlin College, near Cleveland, has the largest building on any 
university campus in the United States fully powered by solar energy. 
However, Oberlin College had to buy the solar panels for their building 
from Germany and Japan because we do not make enough solar panels in 
the United States.
  Through investment in alternative energy, and through biomedical 
research and development, we cannot only create jobs, we can grow small 
business, we can help our environment.
  Now is the time for our Government to do its part and redirect our 
priorities from favoring the wealthiest 1 percent in our Nation to, 
instead, growing our Nation's middle class. It is not a matter of if we 
revamp our trade policy but when we do it.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Alexander pertaining to the introduction of S. 
835 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota 
for his courtesy. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                                 Trade

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I believe this morning President Bush is 
in Brazil. A week ago today, I and a number of Senators met with the 
President at the White House. The issue of the Brazil trip came up. He 
no doubt will talk to the Brazilians about trade this morning. As he 
discusses the issue of trade, I wanted to make a couple of comments.
  Today we had a new trade deficit figure released, about 3 hours ago. 
It shows our merchandise trade deficit in the past month was $66 
billion--in 1 month. I wanted to come to the floor to show what is 
happening to this country's trade. The reason I want to show the 
results of our trade policy is we now have proposals in front of us for 
free trade agreements. We have Colombia, Peru, negotiations with South 
Korea, Thailand, and others. We have been through a period when there 
has been this mantra, this chant, as it is, about free trade.
  This chart shows what is happening to trade. In 1995, 12 years ago, 
we had a $174 billion trade deficit. Now it is $836 billion. Think of 
that: Every single day we wake up in this country, we import over $2 
billion more in goods from overseas than we are able to sell abroad. It 
doesn't matter what the good is, much, and it doesn't matter what the 
country is.
  I have been here with charts that show, for example, to cite one, 
last year we had automobiles put on ships in South Korea. Mr. 
President, over 700,000 automobiles were put on ships in South Korea 
and sent to America and sold in the United States--700,000 South Korean 
automobiles. How many American automobiles do you think we sold in 
Korea, Mr. President, 700,000? No, no--about 4,000. Fair trade? Hardly. 
Ninety-nine percent of the cars on the streets of South Korea are South 
Korean cars. Why? Because they don't want foreign cars sold in South 
Korea. They want to produce cars with jobs in South Korea and ship them 
to the United States.
  Should we allow that kind of one-way trade--700,000 going one way, 
4,000 plus going the other way--to continue? I don't think so.
  Let me talk a little about the general area of trade. I want to put 
up a picture of a young girl named Halima. This is a beautiful 11-year-
old girl. When I showed the chart of the $836 billion trade deficit 
last year, over $2 billion a day--well over $2 billion a day--the 
result of that statistic is American jobs being shipped overseas, 
products being produced overseas, in many cases with dirt-cheap labor, 
sent to a big box retailer in this country to be sold at a lower price. 
That is true, a lower price, so the American consumer gets a better 
price on a 12-pack of underwear or a gallon of mustard someplace. But 
what is the consequence of that to our economy, to our jobs? What 
ultimately is the consequence for our country? I frame all this in the 
context of the President saying: Let's do more, let's do more of this.
  It seems to me if we do much more of that, we won't have much of an 
economy left. At what point do we think a trade deficit matters? This 
isn't money we owe to ourselves. One can make that case in fiscal 
policy with the budget deficit. This is money we owe to other 
countries, over $1 trillion of which we now owe to the Japanese and the 
Chinese. But what are the consequences?
  I mentioned lost American jobs. Where do these jobs go? Who is 
producing what is sent to our country?
  This beautiful young lady is named Halima. She worked at a factory in 
Bangladesh at age 11, and she made Hanes underwear. She worked long 
hours, very low pay, in sweatshop conditions.
  One would think if this is a world market in which we care about the 
circumstances of people working in sweatshop conditions, we would take 
a look at something such as this and say: Wait a second, we don't want 
to buy Hanes underwear made with the hands of an 11-year-old working in 
sweatshop conditions.
  Let me show my colleagues a certification of this plant in which 
Halima worked. ``Certificate of Compliance, February 21, 2007.'' It is 
hereby awarded to Harvest Rich Ltd., worldwide responsible apparel 
production. So they certified this company was doing just fine with 
international standards. An 11-year-old producing in sweatshop 
conditions, sending underwear to Americans? That is fine? I don't think 
so. So is this just an aberration? This just happens on the very 
unusual case, and I just happened to find the picture of Halima?
  Let me tell you how this picture came about. This picture came from a 
woman named Sheik Nazma. She was a former child laborer in Bangladesh. 
She was forced to start working in the textile mills at age 12--a 
sweatshop--and she described the conditions. She organized her 
coworkers for better conditions, saying: Let us, as a group of workers, 
organize to see if we can get better conditions. For that, she was 
beaten and threatened to death for organizing workers.
  Is that an aberration? No, not really. I can give you the names today 
of people sitting in prisons in China. Their transgression? Their 
crime? They tried to organize workers for better conditions, tried to 
organize workers to insist on backpay they were owed. For that, they 
are sitting in prison cells in China because you can't organize workers 
in China.
  What is happening with respect to these trade issues is we are 
sinking deep into this abyss of worsening trade debt. I know what the 
papers will say tomorrow--that $66 billion, the last monthly 
merchandise trade deficit, is about a billion dollars or so less than 
the previous month, and the newspapers will say: Nirvana. What a 
wonderful thing--our trade deficit is shrinking. These, of course, are 
the same newspapers that beat to death this chant of free trade. There 
is not enough of this free trade for them; the more the merrier. My 
only question about all of this is, When do you suggest that this 
represents failure? Is there never an opportunity to suggest that we 
need a change in trade strategy, a change that stands up for what

[[Page 5952]]

we have built in a century in this country?
  Let me describe what it is we have built in this century. A man name 
James Fyler was shot in 1914. The previous accounts of his death say he 
died of lead poisoning actually, but he was shot 54 times. Do you know 
why he was shot and lost his life? Because he believed that people who 
went underground to dig in the coal mines ought to be entitled to two 
things: No. 1, a safe workplace, and No. 2, a fair wage. For that, he 
was murdered.
  In a century, from James Fyler forward, we had people who gave their 
lives and risked their lives to improve standards in this country, to 
insist on the right to organize, to insist on safe workplaces, to 
insist on a fair wage, and to insist on fair labor standards. It was 
tough. There were people beaten in the streets for it. There were 
people shot for insisting that we develop and lift those standards. But 
we did. We did. We expanded and created a middle class almost 
unparalleled in the world, which became the economic strength of this 
country. Working people understood they could get a good job, get some 
training, have a job that had a career ladder, an opportunity for a 
decent wage, an opportunity for benefits, and an opportunity to take 
care of their families. There is no social program in this Chamber that 
is as important as a good job that pays well for able-bodied workers. 
It is what allows everything else to work.
  So we did that for a century, and we expanded opportunities. Now, all 
of a sudden, we are told it is a new day because of the global economy. 
In fact, Tom Friedman wrote a book saying that not only is it a new 
day, but the world is flat. I have yet to see the globe that represents 
that. When you go to most offices or libraries and you see a globe of 
the Earth, it appears round to me. Of course, I only graduated from a 
high school senior class of nine students, so maybe I missed a part of 
the lesson. So now we have books that say the world is flat, which, of 
course, is nonsense because it is not flat.
  It is a global economy. What does that mean? What is the definition 
of what a global economy means for us and for our future? It means, 
according to some, that we ought to be able to understand that 
comparative advantage means you produce products where you can produce 
them at the least cost and then purchase them here and it is good for 
the consumer. The result is corporate executives flying around the 
world deciding where they can produce for the least cost.
  How many of my colleagues remember Radio Flyer's little red wagon, 
which was an American product for 110 years, a Chicago company--the 
little red wagon we have all ridden in? It was named ``Radio Flyer'' 
because the inventor loved Marconi and he loved to fly, so he named his 
product ``Radio Flyer,'' and his company built it in Chicago for 110 
years. Not anymore. It is just gone. It is now built in China. Do you 
think that is because the Chinese build better little red wagons? No, 
not at all. It is because you can find somebody who will work for 30 
cents an hour, and you can work them 7 days a week, 12 to 14 hours a 
day, and you can build a cheaper little red wagon.
  Similarly, you can do the same with Huffy bicycles and then eliminate 
all their jobs. You can do the same with Pennsylvania House furniture. 
In fact, with Pennsylvania House furniture, you can send the 
Pennsylvania wood to China. You can get rid of all the workers in 
Pennsylvania, send the Pennsylvania wood to China, and have them put it 
together and ship it back here, and that is exactly what has happened.
  About 3\1/2\ to 4 million jobs have now migrated to where you can pay 
pennies an hour and then ship the product back to our country. That is 
about enhancing corporate profits, but I think it is at the expense of 
our economic future.
  The former Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Blinder, 
a mainstream economist, said this: There are 42 to 56 million American 
jobs that are tradeable, meaning outsourceable. Not all of them will 
leave our country, but even those that stay are competing with others 
in the world who will work for lower wages. Therefore, there will be 
downward pressure on American wages for working Americans.
  We see it every day. Open the newspaper and see how many people are 
losing their health care benefits, their retirement benefits, and the 
downward pressure on income. We see it every day. It is part of a 
strategy that says free trade, a global economy, produce where it is 
cheap, and sell to a marketplace like this.
  My point is that it doesn't add up in the long run. I am for trade. I 
am in favor of trade, and plenty of it, but I insist and demand that it 
be fair trade for this country that attempts to lift, not depress 
standards. I am very interested in engaging with the rest of the world. 
I am not an isolationist, I am not a protectionist, as they define it, 
although I want to plead guilty quickly to wanting to protect our 
country's economic interests. If that is being a protectionist, then 
just sign me up. I want to protect our country's economic interests. We 
will only do that, and we will do it well, if we understand the need to 
retain a broad middle class, a middle class that sees jobs here that 
pay well, with benefits and opportunities in the future.
  So how do we reconcile all of this? What will happen in the coming 
several months is--and I believe Senator Sherrod Brown spoke about this 
earlier today--what will happen in the coming months is we will be 
requested to debate an extension of something called fast-track 
authority. Fast-track authority. They are going to want to run through 
fast-track authority trade agreements with, yes, South Korea and 
Thailand and Peru and Colombia and many others. The same people who 
have given us this want to give us more of it, a deep canyon of red 
ink, downward pressure on American incomes, and substantial pressure on 
the movement of American jobs.
  Interestingly enough, we not only move American jobs overseas, we 
actually decide, for those who do it, that we will give them a big fat 
tax break. One of the most pernicious, ignorant pieces of public policy 
I can conceive of is when we said: Fire your American workers, close 
your American plants, move your jobs to China, sell your products back 
in America, run your income through the Cayman Islands, and we will 
give you a big fat tax break for it.
  Four times we have voted on eliminating that tax break, four times I 
have offered amendments to shut it down, and four times I have lost. 
Mark my words--we will be voting again and again on that proposition. 
The very last thing we ought to do as a country is decide we want to 
subsidize the flight of American jobs.
  We just introduced a piece of legislation that would deal with the 
issue of sweatshop labor in other countries. What are the standards of 
this so-called global trade in a flat world? Well, at least there is 
one standard. The one standard is that you can't sell tube socks from a 
prison in China at a big-box retailer in America. Why is that? Because 
it is presumed that if you make tube socks or shorts or whatever you 
make in a prison setting, then that truly is the ultimate sweatshop 
labor, I guess. So you can't send prison labor products to our 
marketplace.
  Well, if we all agree with that, and we do, because we already have a 
provision on that, what about the next step up? What about the product 
of an 11-year-old girl? What about the product of a company that hires 
an 11-year-old girl named Halima and works her in sweatshop conditions?
  Should we decide as a country that you cannot produce products in 
sweatshop conditions that abuse workers abroad and send the products 
here--which, by the way, then asks American workers working in plants 
in the United States to compete with that sweatshop labor. It not only 
abuses foreign workers, it also abuses domestic workers because we are 
saying: Compete with something that is completely unsavory. If this 
happened in our country, we would march down the street with law 
enforcement and say: Shut this down.
  We have heard the stories. I think my colleague, Senator Harkin, had 
hearings some several years ago about

[[Page 5953]]

this with the international labor organizations--young kids in carpet 
factories having their fingertips burned with sulfur. They put sulfur 
on the fingertips, then light them on fire. Do you know why? They 
create scars on the fingertips so that as they use needles to sew the 
rugs, two things occur: They don't hurt themselves because they have 
scars from having had their fingertips burned and, second, they won't 
get blood on the carpets. Is this something we should accept? No, I 
don't think so. Is it something we should care about? You are darn 
right we should. But almost nothing--almost nothing--is acceptable to 
discuss in this mantra of free trade without being called a 
protectionist.
  Here is what I think is going to happen. In the last election here in 
this country, I think there were 6 or 8 or 10 Senate races in which the 
winning candidate said: You know what, we are on the wrong track here. 
It is not that we shouldn't trade. We should trade. The origin of this 
great country was the shrewd Yankee trader. We were the traders, good 
traders, and so we should trade. But we shouldn't decide that this kind 
of a trade deficit can continue. It simply cannot.
  Let me pull up the chart with China. The largest trade deficit we 
have is with the country of China, with $232 billion last year alone. 
That is unbelievable.
  I have mentioned before that part of our problem is just incompetent 
trade agreements, just fundamentally incompetent, and I will give an 
example of one.
  I have threatened from time to time that trade negotiators should 
wear uniforms, like the jerseys they wear in the Olympics, so they can 
look down from time to time and, in a sober moment, they can see for 
whom they are working. It would say ``U.S.A.''
  China. We did a bilateral agreement with China, a country with which 
we have a very large trade deficit--a very large deficit and growing. 
It is a country that is also developing a new automobile export 
industry, and they want to export automobiles aggressively to the 
United States. Here is what we said: If you export Chinese automobiles 
to the United States, we will impose a 2.5-percent tariff on your cars, 
but if we export American automobiles to be sold in China, China can 
impose a 25-percent tariff. We negotiated with China a deal that said: 
On a bilateral automobile trade, you ship a car to us and we will 
impose a 2.5-percent tariff, and if we ship a car to you, you can 
impose a tariff that is 10 times higher, and that is just fine. I am 
saying that is ignorant. That is ignorant of our economic interest.
  One little piece of information. Most people don't know it, but you 
can rip open the intestines of these trade agreements and find case 
after case where we have traded away our own economic interests.
  We are going to be confronting now, in the next 4 or 5 months, some 
very tough choices--not so tough for me but perhaps for some--choices 
about what do we do about fast-track trade authority. That is a 
mechanism by which the Senate decides in advance that when a trade 
agreement comes here that has been negotiated in secret, behind closed 
doors, with no participation of any of us, it comes here under an 
expedited procedure with no opportunity for anyone to make any change 
of any type. I don't support that.
  What has happened with China and the world is the deepening abyss of 
red ink, and what has resulted from the strategy that comes from fast 
track is expedited procedures and a straightjacket for the Senate. It 
has come from incompetent agreements. It has come from lack of 
enforcement. In fact, our trade authorities cannot even find some of 
the agreements they have previously negotiated. They can't even find 
them, let alone enforce them.
  I haven't talked here about the number of people who are working in 
our Government to enforce our trade agreements with China. It is fewer 
than 20. Enforcement is just the backwater of trade. Nobody wants to 
enforce anything. It doesn't matter. Yet, in my judgment, it does 
matter to this country's economic future.
  What are we going to do about fast track and the extension for fast 
track that President Bush is requesting? I did not support fast-track 
trade authority for President Clinton, and I do not support it for 
President Bush, although President Bush has had it now for some while. 
But I think there is a new group of Senators who will have to sink 
their teeth into this discussion. What does this mean? What does this 
expedited procedure, fast-track straitjacket, mean? What does it mean 
when we do bilateral negotiations, so-called free-trade negotiations, 
with the countries I previously described, and how do we resolve them? 
How do we deal with them?
  Many of my colleagues, myself included, believe when we negotiate 
trade agreements we should do so with an eye on what we have created 
and built in this country, lifting up standards for almost a century 
now. We should have labor provisions in the trade agreements. We should 
have environmental provisions in the trade agreements. We should have a 
shock absorber for currency fluctuation in the trade agreements. Some 
say that is radical. It is not radical. I will show you what is 
radical. It is the sheet that shows the combined trade deficit with the 
world. When you talk about what is radical, this is radical: the trade 
strategy that gives us this is radical. The trade strategy that gives 
us this morning's merchandise trade deficit of $66 billion, that is 
what is radical.
  There is an old saying: If you don't care where you are, you are 
never going to be lost. You know, we have gone on here for some long 
while with people apparently not caring, but it is time for our country 
to care. There is only one United States on this planet. If you spin 
this globe and try to find another equivalent place, with democracy and 
a market system that have come together to create opportunity for so 
many--there is only one place. But we are quickly losing it with this 
``the world is flat'' approach, with free-trade agreements that tend to 
put downward pressure on wages in this country and strip away benefits 
and decide in this new market system that comparative advantage is not 
just who has the best natural resources to produce what product, but 
who has decided to have rules in their country that prohibit workers 
from organizing, that allow sweatshops to operate, that allows 11-year-
old kids in carpet factories.
  That is not comparative advantage. Ricardo would roll over in his 
grave. It has nothing to do with comparative advantage. We have to 
confront these issues, the sooner the better, and there is no question 
we will begin to confront them in this year, perhaps in the next 4 or 5 
months. The way we confront them and the decisions we make will have a 
profound impact on what kind of a country we have and what kind of 
economy we have in the coming years. That is why it is so important.
  I wanted to make a couple of comments today by pointing out that we 
are now confronted with choices, and those choices, I assume, will be 
imposed upon us in a very short period of time. I look forward to new 
voices in the Senate weighing in on these important issues. Not in a 
way that suggests we are not a part of the world economy, we are a 
significant part of the world economy; not in a way that suggests the 
world has not gotten smaller, it has. The world is not flat, but the 
world certainly is smaller.
  We are engaged in this information technology revolution. If 
something happens almost anywhere in the world, I will know about it 5 
minutes later, and we will see pictures of it in a half hour or less. 
So things have changed. But what has not changed is our need and desire 
as Americans to look after the well-being of our economy and the 
opportunities that can exist for our citizens.
  That is not being selfish. That is our responsibility. We are 
stewards of this country's future, and that stewardship, in my 
judgment, is vastly compromised by this chart and what has happened 
with the shipping of American jobs overseas, with the decision that 
cheaper prices at home for products produced elsewhere for pennies an 
hour represent fair competition for American workers. It is not fair 
competition, and we do

[[Page 5954]]

desperately need, now, a new trade strategy, one that reflects the 
economic interests of this country but one that still insists on being 
a significant part of the world economy even as we try to lift others 
up without pushing our standards down.


                           Amendment No. 286

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I was pleased to join Senator Specter and 
Senator Dodd in offering an amendment to restore the Great Writ of 
habeas corpus, a cornerstone of American liberty since the founding of 
this Nation. Senator Specter and I introduced this legislation late 
last year and reintroduced it on the first day of this new Congress. 
This amendment continues our efforts to amend last year's Military 
Commissions Act, to right a wrong and to restore a basic protection to 
American law. This is an issue on which we continue to work together 
and urge Senators on both sides of the aisle to join with us.
  As Justice Scalia wrote in the Hamdi case: ``The very core of liberty 
secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom 
from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive.'' The remedy 
that secures that most basic of freedoms is habeas corpus. It provides 
a check against arbitrary detentions and constitutional violations. It 
guarantees an opportunity to go to court, with the aid of a lawyer, to 
prove one's innocence. This fundamental protection was rolled back in 
an unprecedented and unnecessary way in the run up to last fall's 
election by passage of the Military Commissions Act.
  The Military Commissions Act eliminated that right, permanently, for 
any noncitizen determined to be an enemy combatant, or even 
``awaiting'' such a determination. That includes the approximately 12 
million lawful permanent residents in the United States today, people 
who work and pay taxes in America and are lawful residents. This new 
law means that any of these people can be detained, forever, without 
any ability to challenge their detention in Federal court--or anywhere 
else--simply on the Government's say-so that they are awaiting 
determination whether they are enemy combatants.
  I deeply regret that Senator Specter and I were unsuccessful in our 
efforts to stop this injustice when the President and the Republican 
leadership insisted on rushing the Military Commissions Act through 
Congress in the weeks before the recent elections. We proposed an 
amendment that would have removed the habeas-stripping provision from 
the Military Commissions Act. We fell just three votes short in those 
politically charged days. It is my hope that the new Senate and new 
Congress will reconsider this matter, restore this fundamental 
protection and revitalize our tradition of checks and balances.
  This amendment to the 9/11 Commission bill provides the right time 
and the place for the Senate to make this stand. The 9/11 Commission 
bill seeks to make us stronger and to protect us from the threat of 
terrorism. Protecting our values and the safeguards that make us a 
strong democracy is key to that effort. Restoring our place as an 
example to the world of liberty and the rule of law will only increase 
our security and undermine those who would seek to recruit terrorists.
  Giving the Government such raw, unfettered power as the Military 
Commissions Act did should concern every American. Last fall, I spelled 
out a nightmare scenario about a hard-working legal permanent resident 
who makes an innocent donation to, among other charities, a Muslim 
charity that the Government secretly suspects might be a source of 
funding for critics of the United States Government. I suggested that, 
on the basis of this donation and perhaps a report of ``suspicious 
behavior'' from an overzealous neighbor, the permanent resident could 
be brought in for questioning, denied a lawyer, confined, and even 
tortured. Such a person would have no recourse in the courts for years, 
for decades, forever.
  Many people viewed this kind of nightmare scenario as fanciful, just 
the rhetoric of a politician. It was not. It is all spelled out clearly 
in the language of the law that this body passed. In November, the 
scenario I spelled out was confirmed by the Department of Justice 
itself in a legal brief submitted in a Federal court in Virginia. The 
Justice Department, in a brief to dismiss a detainee's habeas case, 
said that the Military Commissions Act allows the Government to detain 
any non-citizen designated an enemy combatant without giving that 
person any ability to challenge his detention in court. This is true, 
the Justice Department said, even for someone arrested and imprisoned 
in the United States. The Washington Post wrote that the brief ``raises 
the possibility that any of the millions of immigrants living in the 
United States could be subject to indefinite detention if they are 
accused of ties to terrorist groups.''
  In fact, the situation is even more stark than The Washington Post 
story suggested. The Justice Department's brief says that the 
Government can detain any noncitizen declared to be an enemy combatant. 
But the law this Congress passed says the Government need not even make 
that declaration: They can hold people indefinitely who are awaiting 
determination whether or not they are enemy combatants.
  It gets worse. Republican leaders in the Senate followed the White 
House's lead and greatly expanded the definition of ``enemy 
combatants'' in the dark of night in the final days before the bill's 
passage, so that enemy combatants need not be soldiers on any 
battlefield. They can be people who donate small amounts of money, or 
people that any group of decision-makers selected by the President 
decides to call enemy combatants. The possibilities are chilling.
  We have eliminated basic legal and human rights for the 12 million 
lawful permanent residents who live and work among us, to say nothing 
of the millions of other legal immigrants and visitors who we welcome 
to our shores each year. We have removed a vital check that our legal 
system provides against the Government arbitrarily detaining people for 
life without charge. We may well have also made many of our remaining 
limits against torture and cruel and inhuman treatment obsolete because 
they are unenforceable. We have removed the mechanism the Constitution 
provides to check Government overreaching and lawlessness.
  This is wrong. It is unconstitutional. It is un-American. It is 
designed to ensure that the Bush-Cheney administration will never again 
be embarrassed by a United States Supreme Court decision reviewing its 
unlawful abuses of power. The conservative Supreme Court, with seven of 
its nine members appointed by Republican Presidents, has been the only 
check on this administration's lawlessness. Certainly the last Congress 
did not do it. With passage of the Military Commissions Act, the 
Republican Congress completed the job of eviscerating its role as a 
check and balance on the administration.
  Some Senators uneasy about the Military Commissions Act's disastrous 
habeas provision took solace in the thought that it would be struck 
down by the courts. Instead, the first court to consider that 
provision, a Federal court in the District of Columbia, upheld the 
provision. The DC Circuit, in a sharply divided 2-1 decision, upheld 
that ruling, holding that at least the hundreds of detainees held in 
Guantanamo Bay cannot go to court to challenge their detention. We 
should not outsource our moral, legal and constitutional responsibility 
to the courts. We cannot count on the courts to fix our mistakes. 
Congress must be accountable for its actions, and we should act to 
right this wrong.
  Following the DC Circuit's decision, newspapers and experts from 
across the country and across the political spectrum have called on 
Congress to take action. Editorial boards from the Washington Post and 
the New York Times to the Evansville Courier & Press in Indiana, and 
the Columbia Tribune in Missouri have called for reversing the MCA's 
habeas provision. Prominent conservatives like Bob Barr and Bruce Fein, 
along with Aberto Mora, former Navy General Counsel in the Bush 
Administration, have echoed this call. I ask that a selection of these 
editorials be placed in the record.

[[Page 5955]]

  A group of four distinguished admirals and generals who have served 
as senior military lawyers argued passionately for fixing this problem 
in a letter they sent to me earlier this week. They wrote, ``In 
discarding habeas corpus, we are jettisoning one of the core principles 
of our Nation precisely when we should be showcasing to the world our 
respect for the rule of law and basic rights. These are the 
characteristics that make our nation great. These are the values our 
men and women in uniform are fighting to preserve.''
  Abolishing habeas corpus for anyone who the Government thinks might 
have assisted enemies of the United States is unnecessary and morally 
wrong. It is a betrayal of the most basic values of freedom for which 
America stands. It makes a mockery of the administration's lofty 
rhetoric about exporting freedom across the globe.
  We should take steps to ensure that our enemies can be brought to 
justice efficiently and quickly. I introduced a bill to do that back in 
2002, as did Senator Specter, when we each proposed a set of laws to 
establish military commissions. The Bush-Cheney administration rejected 
our efforts and designed a regime the U.S. Supreme Court determined to 
be unlawful. Establishing appropriate military commissions is not the 
question. We all agree to do that. What we need to revisit is the 
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus for millions of legal 
immigrants and others, denying their right to challenge indefinite 
detainment on the Government's say-so.
  It is from strength that America should defend our values and our 
Constitution. It takes commitment to those values to demand 
accountability from the Government. We should not be legislating from 
fear. In standing up for American values and security, I will keep 
working on this issue until we restore the checks and balances that are 
fundamental to preserving the liberties that define us as a nation. We 
can ensure our security without giving up our liberty. That is what the 
9/11 Commission bill aims to do, and that is what this amendment will 
help to achieve.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following editorials 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, Mar. 4, 2007]

                   Extend Legal Rights to Guantanamo

              (By Alberto J. Mora and Thomas R. Pickering)

       For more than 200 years, the courts have served as the 
     ultimate safeguard for our civil liberties. A critical part 
     of this role has been the judicial branch's ability to 
     consider writs of habeas corpus, through which people who 
     have been imprisoned can challenge the decision to hold them 
     in government custody. In this way, habeas corpus has 
     provided an important check on executive power. However, 
     because of a provision of the Military Commissions Act passed 
     last fall, this fundamental role of the courts has been 
     seriously reduced.
       Habeas corpus--the Great Writ--has been the preeminent 
     safeguard of individual liberty for centuries by providing 
     meaningful judicial review of executive action and ensuring 
     that our government has complied with the Constitution and 
     the laws of the United States. Habeas review has always been 
     most critical in cases of executive detention without charge 
     because it provides prisoners a meaningful opportunity to 
     contest their detention before a neutral decision maker.
       In 2004, the Supreme Court held that the protections of 
     habeas corpus extend to detainees at Guantanamo Bay, who may 
     rely on them to challenge the lawfulness of their indefinite 
     detentions. The court noted that at its historical core, 
     ``the writ of habeas corpus has served as a means of 
     reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in 
     that context that its protections have been strongest.''
       But the Military Commissions Act eliminates the federal 
     courts' ability to hear habeas petitions filed by certain 
     noncitizens detained by the United States at Guantanamo Bay 
     and elsewhere. Late last month the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
     the D.C. Circuit upheld this provision and dismissed the 
     lawsuits filed by many of the Guantanamo detainees.
       We fully recognize that our government must have the power 
     to detain suspected foreign terrorists to protect national 
     security. But removing the federal courts' ability to hear 
     habeas corpus claims does not serve that goal. On the 
     contrary, habeas corpus is crucial to ensure that the 
     government's power to detain is exercised wisely, lawfully 
     and consistently with American values. That is why we have 
     joined with the Constitution Project's broad and bipartisan 
     group of judges, former members of Congress, executive branch 
     officials, scholars and others to urge Congress to restore 
     federal court jurisdiction to hear these habeas corpus 
     petitions.
       The unconventional nature of the ``war on terrorism'' makes 
     habeas corpus more, not less, important. Unlike what is found 
     in traditional conflicts, there is no clearly defined enemy, 
     no identifiable battlefield and no foreseeable end to the 
     fighting. The government claims the power to imprison 
     individuals without charge indefinitely, potentially forever. 
     It is essential that there be a meaningful process to ensure 
     that the United States does not mistakenly deprive innocent 
     people of their liberty. Habeas corpus provides that process.
       We recognize that the Military Commissions Act still 
     enables the Guantanamo detainees to have hearings before a 
     Combatant Status Review Tribunal, which is charged with 
     determining whether the detainee is in fact an ``enemy 
     combatant.'' But unlike court hearings, the tribunal hearings 
     rely on secret evidence, deny detainees the chance to obtain 
     and present their own evidence, and allow the government to 
     use evidence obtained by coercive interrogation methods. 
     While these tribunals have some utility, they cannot replace 
     the critical role of habeas corpus.
       The government has detained some Guantanamo prisoners for 
     more than five years without giving them a meaningful 
     opportunity to be heard. The United States cannot expect 
     other nations to afford its citizens the basic guarantees 
     provided by habeas corpus unless it provides those guarantees 
     to others.
       And in our constitutional system of checks and balances, it 
     is unwise for the legislative branch to limit an established 
     and traditional avenue of judicial review.
       Americans should be proud of their commitment to the rule 
     of law and not diminish the protections it provides. Our 
     country's detention policy has undermined its reputation 
     around the world and has weakened support for the fight 
     against terrorism. Restoring habeas corpus rights would help 
     repair the damage and demonstrate U.S. commitment to a 
     counterterrorism policy that is tough but that also respects 
     individual rights. Congress should restore the habeas corpus 
     rights that were eliminated by the Military Commissions Act, 
     and President Bush should sign that bill into law.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Times, Feb. 27, 2007]

                          Rule of Law Crippled

                            (By Bruce Fein)

       The Great Writ of habeas corpus is to the rule of law what 
     oxygen is to life.
       The U.S. Court of Appeals imprudently crippled the writ 
     last week in Lakhdar Boumediene v. Bush (Feb. 20). A divided 
     three-judge panel declared suspected alien enemy combatants 
     held indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay may not question their 
     detentions in federal courts though petitions for writs of 
     habeas corpus under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 
     (MCA). Writing for a 2-1 majority, Judge Raymond Randolph 
     mistakenly endorsed a cramped interpretation of habeas corpus 
     as though he were addressing a tax exemption in the Internal 
     Revenue Code.
       Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Accordingly, the Great 
     Writ prevents the president from disappearing political 
     opponents or the unpopular into dungeons based on his say-so 
     alone, a frightening power that has earmarked despots from 
     time immemorial. The writ enables detainees to require the 
     president to establish the factual and legal foundations for 
     their detentions before an independent judiciary.
       The goal is justice, the end of civil society as James 
     Madison explained in the Federalist Papers. The president may 
     be inclined to detain bogus enemy combatants in the war 
     against global terrorism to inflate public fear and to 
     justify executive aggrandizements, for example, spying 
     without judicial or legislative oversight in contravention of 
     the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. A former 
     commandant and deputy commandant at Guantanamo Bay have 
     averred that most of its detainees do not belong there.
       The Great Writ does not threaten to release a single 
     genuine enemy combatant. The burden to defeat the Great Writ 
     is modest: plausible evidence (far short of proof beyond a 
     reasonable doubt) that the detainee was implicated in active 
     hostilities against the United States. In Rasul v. Bush 
     (2004), the Supreme Court held the federal habeas corpus 
     statute extended to aliens at Guantanamo. Two years later, 
     Congress overruled Rasul in the MCA by suspending the Great 
     Writ for alien enemy combatants detained anywhere. Its 
     proponents were unable to cite a single habeas case either 
     before or after Rasul that precipitated the release of an 
     authentic terrorist. Such a case might be hypothesized with a 
     fevered enough imagination. But the law would become ``a ass, 
     a idiot,'' in the words of Charles Dickens' Mr.

[[Page 5956]]

     Bumble, if required to answer jumbo speculations that never 
     happen in the real world.
       Article I, section 9, clause 2 of the Constitution 
     (Suspension Clause) declares ``The Privilege of the Writ of 
     Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless in Cases of 
     Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.'' 
     Judge Randolph tacitly acknowledged in Boumediene that 
     neither habeas exception justified the MCA, i.e., global 
     terrorists have not invaded America. He insisted, however, 
     that the Great Writ has no application to aliens detained 
     outside the sovereignty of the United States; and, that 
     Guantanamo Bay is under the sovereignty of Cuba, albeit 
     subject to a perpetual United States lease.
       The latter observation is risible. Fidel Castro has no more 
     access or control over Guantanamo than he does over 
     Washington, D.C., or Des Moines. If Mr. Castro formally 
     abandoned sovereignty over Guantanamo tomorrow, nothing would 
     change. Judge Randolph maintained that a declaration by the 
     political branches in the MCA that Guantanamo is not part of 
     the United States is conclusive on the courts. But the 
     dimensions of the Great Writ which defines what we are as a 
     people should not be so easily contracted by semantic 
     jugglery.
       Judge Randolph observed that historically the Great Writ in 
     Great Britain was withheld from remote islands, garrisons and 
     dominions. Compliance with a writ from overseas would have 
     been impractical because of time limitations for producing 
     the detainee. But as Chief Justice John Marshall taught in 
     McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Constitution was designed 
     to endure for the ages and to be construed accordingly to 
     achieve its purposes. Congress is empowered to create an Air 
     Force, although the Constitution speaks only of armies and 
     navies. The Fourth Amendment protects against indiscriminate 
     government interceptions of e-mails and conversations, 
     although its language speaks only of persons, houses, papers 
     and effects. Similarly, the Great Writ should apply to 
     suspected alien enemy combatants detained abroad unless 
     compliance would be impractical or unworkable.
       No civilized Constitution risks injustice for the sake of 
     injustice, aside from the folly of creating poster children 
     to boost al Qaeda's recruitments. The Supreme Court should 
     grant review of Boumediene and reverse the appeals court.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Feb. 23, 2007]

                          A Congressional Duty

       ON THE FIRST day of the new Congress, two leading senators 
     announced they would join in an attempt to reverse the hasty 
     and ill-considered decision of the previous Congress to 
     deprive foreign prisoners at Guantanamo Bay of the ancient 
     right of habeas corpus, which allows the appeal of 
     imprisonment to a judge. One of the senators, Arlen Specter 
     (R-Pa.), predicted that the courts would rule that the 
     provision of the Military Commissions Act eliminating habeas 
     corpus was unconstitutional; he nevertheless joined the 
     incoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick 
     J. Leahy (D-Vt.), in sponsoring a bill restoring the appeal 
     right.
       Now Mr. Specter's prediction is looking less sure: The U.S. 
     Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled this week that 
     Congress's act was constitutional, and it threw the cases of 
     dozens of Guantanamo detainees out of federal court. That 
     ruling will almost certainly be reviewed by the Supreme Court 
     on appeal, but Congress should not wait for its decision. It 
     should move quickly on the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act.
       The Supreme Court has already twice overruled decisions by 
     the D.C. Circuit denying Guantanamo detainees habeas rights, 
     but it is hard to predict whether it will do so again. The 
     court's composition has changed since those rulings, with the 
     addition of justices more likely to be sympathetic to the 
     arguments of the Bush administration. Congress has reversed 
     part of the basis for the court's previous rulings by 
     enacting a statute saying that persons found to be ``enemy 
     combatants'' by military review panels, including detainees 
     held at Guantanamo, have only a limited right of appeal.
       The principal remaining question is whether Congress's 
     action is permitted under Article I, Section 9 of the 
     Constitution, which says, ``The Privilege of the Writ of 
     Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended'' except in cases of 
     ``Rebellion or Invasion.'' Two judges of the three-member 
     appeals court panel ruled that the provision does not apply 
     at Guantanamo because it is not on U.S. territory and the 
     detainees are foreigners. A dissent written by Judge Judith 
     Rogers pointed out that one of the earlier Supreme Court 
     rulings stated that giving appeal rights to Guantanamo 
     inmates ``is consistent with the historical reach of the writ 
     of habeas corpus.'' But the court has not ruled squarely on 
     the constitutional issue.
       Rather than wait for the court's decision, Congress should 
     correct its own mistake. The 51 to 48 vote rejecting Mr. 
     Specter's previous attempt to restore habeas condemned 
     hundreds of foreign prisoners to indefinite detention without 
     trial at Guantanamo; only a few score are expected to be 
     prosecuted by the military commissions. Since 2002 it has 
     become clear that a number of prisoners at the facility were 
     arrested in error, are not terrorists and pose no threat to 
     the United States. Moreover, improvements in the prisoners' 
     treatment have come about largely because of their court 
     appeals. Congress has both a practical and a moral interest 
     in ensuring that this basic human right is restored.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Feb. 22, 2007]

                   American Liberty at the Precipice

       In another low moment for American justice, a federal 
     appeals court ruled on Tuesday that detainees held at the 
     prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, do not have the right to 
     be heard in court. The ruling relied on a shameful law that 
     President Bush stampeded through Congress last fall that 
     gives dangerously short shrift to the Constitution.
       The right of prisoners to challenge their confinement--
     habeas corpus--is enshrined in the Constitution and is 
     central to American liberty. Congress and the Supreme Court 
     should act quickly and forcefully to undo the grievous damage 
     that last fall's law--and this week's ruling--have done to 
     this basic freedom.
       The Supreme Court ruled last year on the jerry-built system 
     of military tribunals that the Bush Administration 
     established to try the Guantanamo detainees, finding it 
     illegal. Mr. Bush responded by driving through Congress the 
     Military Commissions Act, which presumed to deny the right of 
     habeas corpus to any noncitizen designated as an ``enemy 
     combatant.'' This frightening law raises insurmountable 
     obstacles for prisoners to challenge their detentions. And it 
     gives the government the power to take away habeas rights 
     from any noncitizen living in the United States who is 
     unfortunate enough to be labeled an enemy combatant.
       The United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
     Columbia Circuit, which rejected the detainees' claims by a 
     vote of 2 to 1, should have permitted the detainees to be 
     heard in court--and it should have ruled that the law is 
     unconstitutional.
       As Judge Judith Rogers argued in a strong dissent, the 
     Supreme Court has already rejected the argument that 
     detainees do not have habeas rights because Guantanamo is 
     located outside the United States. Judge Rogers also rightly 
     noted that the Constitution limits the circumstances under 
     which Congress can suspend habeas to ``cases of Rebellion or 
     invasion,'' which is hardly the situation today. Moreover, 
     she said, the act's alternative provisions for review of 
     cases are constitutionally inadequate. The Supreme Court 
     should add this case to its docket right away and reverse it 
     before this term ends.
       Congress should not wait for the Supreme Court to act. With 
     the Democrats now in charge, it is in a good position to pass 
     a new law that fixes the dangerous mess it has made. Senators 
     Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Arlen Specter, 
     Republican of Pennsylvania, have introduced a bill that would 
     repeal the provision in the Military Commissions Act that 
     purports to obliterate the habeas corpus rights of detainees.
       The Bush administration's assault on civil liberties does 
     not end with habeas corpus. Congress should also move quickly 
     to pass another crucial bill, introduced by Senator 
     Christopher Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, that, among other 
     steps, would once and for all outlaw the use of evidence 
     obtained through torture.
       When the Founding Fathers put habeas corpus in Article I of 
     the Constitution, they were underscoring the vital importance 
     to a democracy of allowing prisoners to challenge their 
     confinement in a court of law. Much has changed since Sept. 
     11, but the bedrock principles of American freedom must 
     remain.
                                  ____


               [From the Columbia Tribune, Feb. 22, 2007]

               Enemy Combatants: A Fast Track to Justice

       Under the president's shortcut plan for wartime justice, 
     anyone he labels an ``enemy combatant'' loses normal 
     constitutional rights. The government denies hundreds of 
     detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the right to a hearing in 
     court.
       Last year the U.S. Supreme Court declared this denial 
     unconstitutional. In response, the Bush administration pushed 
     through Congress the Military Commissions Act authorizing the 
     use of such commissions instead of courts for hearing these 
     cases.
       This week the District of Columbia appeals court upheld the 
     new law, a decision certain to be appealed, sending the issue 
     back to the highest court, where I hope this latest gambit 
     will be denied.
       I suppose President George W. Bush and his crew refuse to 
     let these prisoners have habeas corpus hearings in the U.S. 
     court system because they fear the outcome. Why else? And if 
     so, what does that say about their expectations for the 
     military commissions? That these extra-judicial bodies will 
     affirm the government's extralegal detention policies? What 
     else?
       This dogged insistence is but one example of Bush's 
     eagerness to ignore essential constitutional guarantees, 
     ranking right up there with his programs of warrantless 
     wiretapping and other surveillance of U.S. citizens.
       Bush simply refuses to go to court for oversight of his 
     administration's actions in denial of civil rights. Before he 
     took office,

[[Page 5957]]

     it was simple. When a person is arrested, he has a right to a 
     real court hearing to determine the legitimacy of the arrest 
     and his ultimate guilt or innocence. When citizens' privacy 
     is invaded by government, it is to be done only with court 
     permission.
       We see signs that the American public is getting fed up 
     with these constitutional shortcuts. These practices alone 
     are enough to unwarrant this administration. Let us pray the 
     Supreme Court again slaps them down.
                                  ____


          [From the Evansville Courier & Press, Feb. 21, 2007]

  A Matter of Right: Federal Court Upholds Denial of Habeas Corpus to 
                       Detainees Outside the U.S

       Congress should tear itself away from the pointless 
     business of passing nonbinding resolutions on Iraq and begin 
     cleaning up the damage we've done to ourselves in the war on 
     terror.
       That task became more urgent this week when the federal 
     court of appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the 
     constitutionality of a provision denying the right of habeas 
     corpus to detainees held outside the United States.
       The Military Commissions Act (MCA) was passed last year, 
     hastily and without much thought like so much anti-terrorism 
     legislation, after the Supreme Court told the Bush 
     administration that it had to get congressional permission 
     for its plan to try the detainees before military tribunals.
       Part of that law banned the detainees at U.S. prisons in 
     Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and Afghanistan from challenging in 
     civilian courts the legality of their detention. That right 
     of habeas corpus is a bedrock principle of Anglo-Saxon law 
     going back eight centuries. It is a fundamental right 
     enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
       Carving out an exception to that right based on a sketchy 
     designation as an ``enemy combatant'' was a terrible 
     precedent, essentially justifying arbitrary imprisonment.
       The senior members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen 
     Specter, R-Pa., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., tried to rectify 
     this departure from U.S. respect for the rule of law last 
     year and failed by three votes.
       They have reintroduced their bill in the new Congress.
       Another bill, by Leahy and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., would 
     restore the right of habeas corpus and clean up some other 
     unfortunate provisions in the MCA by sharpening the 
     definition of ``illegal combatant,'' excluding evidence 
     obtained by coercion and allowing military judges to exclude 
     hearsay evidence.
       If the circuit-court ruling stands, the practical effect 
     would be to force the federal courts to dismiss more than 400 
     habeas-corpus appeals. The ruling will certainly be appealed 
     to the Supreme Court, and one hopes that the high court would 
     stand up for this ancient and fundamental right.
       But it would be better if Congress acted first to 
     demonstrate our faith and confidence in our own system.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of amendment No. 366, 
offered by my colleague, Senator Schumer. This important amendment 
would restore the export restrictions on highly enriched, HEU, bomb-
grade uranium for use as a reactor fuel or as targets to produce 
medical isotopes, except on an interim basis to facilities that are 
actively pursuing conversion to low-enriched uranium LEU.
  Let's look at the history behind this amendment. From 1992 until 
2005, we had a law that worked. Under that law, we allowed the 
exportation of HEU for the production of medical isotopes as long as 
the recipient of that highly enriched uranium cooperated with the 
United States to get to the point where the production of these medical 
isotopes could be done with low-enriched uranium. Low-enriched uranium 
is not of sufficient grade to make bombs. This law provided the 
incentive to work with the United States to attain conversion to LEU. 
Most important, it furthered our antiproliferation goal of reducing the 
circulation of HEU outside the United States. It is important to note 
that from 1992 until 2005, licenses for the shipments of HEU were never 
denied and the medical isotopes needed for radiopharmaceuticals were 
never in short supply.
  Then in 2005 this effective, 13-year-old law was gutted through an 
amendment to the Energy Policy Act and the export restrictions on HEU 
were eliminated. These restrictions were lifted over the objection of a 
majority of this body, which voted in favor of retaining existing law, 
52 to 46, after a thorough debate. You may ask why an amendment to 
allow weapons-grade uranium to leave the United States without 
restriction would resurface in conference and end up enacted into law. 
I ask that same question. There are no good explanations. One thing is 
certain, though; we need to fix it.
  The major producers of medical isotopes are all foreign companies 
operating outside the United States. Under the previous law, these 
companies were moving toward conversion to LEU, and many have developed 
the capability to produce medical isotopes from LEU. Australia and the 
Netherlands are two good examples. The other major producer of medical 
isotopes is in Canada. That Canadian company has resisted conversion to 
LEU and in 2005 that company had enough HEU-material stockpiled to 
build at least four bombs. Today, who knows how much it may have 
stockpiled. One thing we do know is, if this material is lost or 
stolen, the United States would be faced with a serious nuclear threat. 
We must rectify this mistake. I urge my colleagues to adopt this 
amendment.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I make a point of order, en bloc, that the 
pending amendments are not germane under the provisions of rule XXII, 
with the exception of the following: Reid No. 275, Landrieu No. 321, 
Schumer No. 336, Coburn No. 325, Coburn No. 294, Kyl No. 357, Biden No. 
383, Schumer No. 367, Stevens No. 299, Schumer No. 337, Bond No. 389.
  Mr. President, I make that point of order on behalf of Senator 
Lieberman. I believe it has been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is well taken and the 
amendments fall.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it has been a productive week for the 
Senate. We have moved closer to completing the long overdue work of the 
9/11 Commission--work that will make our country more safe, more 
secure.
  It has been over 2\1/2\ years since the 9/11 Commission gave Congress 
a roadmap to follow to secure our country. This bipartisan Commission 
met for over a year, had hearings all over the country, did excellent 
work. It is important we do not delay their recommendations any longer. 
The safety and security of our country is too important.
  Before we adjourn today, I wish to say a few words in praise of my 
friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Louisiana, Mary Landrieu. 
In the face of many objections from the minority, Senator Landrieu has 
been tireless in working to eliminate rules that are nothing more than 
miles of redtape and mountains of paperwork that are delaying the 
rebuilding and recovery of the gulf coast, which was devastated by a 
natural disaster we now know as Katrina.
  Her amendment No. 295 is very simple. It would waive the requirement 
that local communities put up a 10-percent match for every Federal 
dollar we spend to rebuild public facilities such as schools and fire 
stations destroyed by Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. These were all 
devastating hurricanes.
  The President has the authority to do this with a single stroke of 
the pen. In fact, I joined with Senators Landrieu and Lieberman urging 
him a month ago to do just that, to use his office to lift these 
significant burdens to recovery. To this day, he simply has not done 
that. He waived these rules for New York after 9/11. The first 
President Bush waived these rules after Hurricane Andrew, which was 
devastating but does not compare to what Katrina did. In fact, these 
rules have been waived every time disaster recovery

[[Page 5958]]

costs have grown to even a fraction of those we are now seeing. But not 
with Katrina and its pals, Rita and Wilma.
  So that brings us to why we are here today. What the President would 
not do we must do legislatively. I would say to all those who are from 
the administration who are listening to us talk today, when the 
President gets back from Latin America, let's have him do this. It 
would save our having to do it in the supplemental. He could call down 
here. Even maybe he could get some of the people to back off on the 
other side so we could do it before this bill passes. The President 
does not need legislation. He has the authority to do that right now. I 
would hope he would do that. The Senator from Louisiana has been 
patient and very aggressive. That is what is necessary. I would hope 
her patience would be rewarded with the President signing his name 
waiving this 10 percent. It is something that needs to be done. If not, 
I have committed to her and the people of Louisiana, through her 
Governor and others who have come to see me, that we are going to do 
what is right.
  This is important. It has happened for every other major disaster, 
and it should happen for this one. If we cannot do it on this bill, and 
the President will not do it, then we will have to do it on the 
supplemental that will be here in a little over 2 weeks. The House has 
already said they intend to do this. We also intend to do this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I thank the majority leader for those words and for him restating 
publicly and unequivocally his commitment to getting this job done, not 
just for the people of Louisiana but for the people of the gulf coast. 
We have spent a lot of time on the floor, as the majority leader knows, 
talking about rebuilding other places in the world. The leader is 
correct, and the Democratic caucus is leading to try to redirect some 
of that attention to right here at home.
  We have over 30 million people who live on the gulf coast right now, 
today, this Friday. The work of rebuilding is being thwarted, is being 
hampered, is being delayed by outmoded, unrealistic Federal regulations 
and bureaucratic redtape that is choking this recovery.
  Now, normally this redtape is a nuisance. We work through it. It is 
inconvenient. It is a nuisance. But we just sort of move through the 
redtape of Government. But in this case, it is literally a noose that 
is around the necks of people, of business owners, large and small, 
family members--strangling their efforts to recover their communities 
that were devastated.
  Just to put some pieces in the picture I am trying to paint, I would 
like to just share some details about Cameron Parish. You do not hear 
much about Cameron Parish because there are only 9,658 people who live 
there. We hear a lot about New Orleans. We hear a lot about Jefferson 
Parish. We hear a lot about even St. Bernard Parish. But little Cameron 
Parish, down on the southwest border, that was directly hit by Rita, 
the ``forgotten storm.'' We have not. The legislative delegation from 
Louisiana has not forgotten it, but many others fail to remember it.
  Cameron Parish lost five fire stations, four community recreation 
centers, four public libraries, three maintenance barns, two parish 
multipurpose buildings, Courthouse Circle; Cameron Parish Police Jury 
Annex Building--destroyed; Cameron Parish Sheriff's Department 
Investigative Office--destroyed. The health unit was destroyed. The 
school board office was destroyed. The mosquito control barn was 
destroyed. And the waterworks district No. 10 office was destroyed. 
Virtually every public building was destroyed, except the courthouse, 
which was built in the early part of the century. It is several stories 
high, and it sort of shines white on the coast. If you flew over it, 
you could actually see it. It is quite large, and many people's lives 
have actually been saved by going to the courthouse during storms, 
where they have been kept from the high water. But everything else in 
the parish is gone. This little parish can no more put up a 10-percent 
match to rebuild four libraries, all their schools, than the man in the 
moon.
  Now, normally, if the hurricane was not so bad, the State of 
Louisiana, which is a big State--not huge, but we are not small, we are 
medium-sized--would be strong enough to step up, give Cameron Parish 
the 10 percent of each of these very important public works for the 
10,000 people or so who live there. But the problem is, Katrina and 
Rita were so devastating to the whole State that our State is not 
strong enough.
  That is why we have a Federal Government. When the State is not 
strong enough, because of the storms, the Nation steps up. I am asking 
the President of the United States to step up and use his authority to 
waive this 10-percent match so the people of Cameron and the people 
right next door to them on the Texas line who were equally hard hit and 
the people to the right of them on the map--the good people of 
Mississippi--there are towns in Mississippi that lost every school, 
every library. The State of Mississippi will have a difficult time as 
well. But the State of Louisiana is having an unusually difficult time 
because of the devastation.
  I want to say again--because I think numbers can paint a picture or 
tell a story better than even words can--the per capita damage to 
Florida from Hurricane Andrew was $139. The per capita damage to the 
State of New York was $390 from the attacks on the World Trade Center. 
These two events were unprecedented and unheard of. Most storms are 
like $20 per capita, $50 per capita. They hardly ever go over $50 per 
capita.
  When Hurricane Andrew came through, it really woke us up to the poor 
people of Florida. It wrecked Homestead, FL, and was a great weight for 
the State of Florida. But we all pitched in and helped, and this match 
was waived.
  When 9/11 hit, it shook the foundations of this Nation. It also shook 
the great city of New York. But it was waived, and we all pitched in 
and helped.
  Here we have Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and we sit here wondering: 
Where is the Government? Where is the President? Where is the 
minority's thinking on this subject? Our per capita damage is $6,700. 
It defies anything we have ever seen.
  Our State has been asking for this 10 percent reduction for 18 
months. Do we have to keep asking for it? Do we have to keep supplying 
data like this? What is it going to take to get them to understand if 
there was ever a situation where the 10 percent should be waived, if 
there was ever an example like Cameron Parish, this is it.
  So this amendment is pending. It is being opposed by an undisclosed 
person. But the minority is opposing it. I will meet the minority more 
than halfway. I am asking the administration, please, over the weekend, 
to reconsider. Let us get this done on this bill. Every day, every week 
counts. If we cannot, the majority leader has said--and I, of course, 
will support the effort, and many of the members of this caucus are 
supporting it--we will do it on the supplemental. The problem is, it 
will take us weeks. Perhaps the supplemental will run into a veto 
threat. Who knows? Because there are lots of issues that are going to 
come up on that supplemental. But this issue is clear. It could be 
easily fixed on this bill. I am going to work through the weekend to 
see if we can find any kind of compromise that could give a green light 
to the people of Cameron Parish. Let me say that even without that 
light, we visited Cameron Parish several times. Their little girls' 
softball team that was in contention when the storm hit went on to win 
the championship. Without a cafeteria, without a school, without a gym 
to practice, with most of their teachers' homes underwater and their 
own homes underwater, and most of them living in trailers or in tents, 
this team went on to win the championship. So when people say that 
people in Louisiana don't have resilience, we are being as resilient as 
we possibly can be under these circumstances. All we are asking is to 
please look at the data, please consider

[[Page 5959]]

our case and allow us to get this 10 percent waiver so that the public 
works can move forward on fire stations, police stations, libraries, 
and infrastructure, most certainly essential to communities rebuilding. 
As we rebuild, we are rebuilding on higher ground. We are rebuilding 
with better building materials. We are mitigating against future 
storms. We are not building in the old-fashioned ways. But if this 10 
percent doesn't get waived, we are not going to be building new or old 
or otherwise. We won't be building.
  As I said, we may not be a fancy coast, but we are America's energy 
coast. We are proud of the fish that we bring in right off of Cameron 
Parish. We are proud of the shipping industry. We are proud of the ship 
channel that brings liquefied natural gas to keep the lights on in this 
Chamber and sends gas to New York and Philadelphia and California every 
day.
  This is Cameron Parish. They are not sunbathing down in Cameron 
Parish. Yet we can't find it out of the goodwill of our hearts--we are 
spending all of this money to rebuild Iraq, and I have 10,000 people 
down on the coast. Does anybody remember they are Americans, taxpaying 
Americans with no libraries, no schools, and no possible way to put up 
their 10 percent match because they lost everything? I would think that 
somewhere in this trillion-dollar budget and maybe in the heart of the 
minority they could find some room for the people of Cameron Parish. 
Please consider our request over this weekend to get this 10 percent 
waived.
  I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Lincoln). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________