Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David Azaria and Rachael Creswell of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have listened to most of the comments made by my friend from Oklahoma, and I think he asked some good questions, things we all have to consider about what will happen when we leave. The Senator talked about the moral obligations, what moral obligations we have. I wonder what moral obligation we had back in the 1980s when Donald Rumsfeld went to visit with Saddam Hussein? What moral responsibility did we have in the Reagan administration when we supported Saddam Hussein, gave him weapons, and gave him information in his war against Iran? What was our moral obligation at that time? We hear about what will happen when we leave, all this talk about a bloodbath and everything. Well, Madam President, I can remember Vietnam. I can remember the same things: Oh, if we leave Vietnam--we either fight them there or we fight them here. We have to stop the Communists in Vietnam or it will be the Philippines next and then Japan. We have to stop them there. And if we leave, there will be a bloodbath in Vietnam. All of the people who supported us will be slaughtered in the streets. Well, it didn't happen. Here today, with Vietnam, we have diplomatic relations. I think we just had the new Ambassador or President come over and meet with President Bush in the White House. Cruise ships, these big cruise ships now dock over in Saigon and people get off and go into Saigon. Americans take cruise ships over there in Vietnam and go to the beaches. You look back and you think about those 50,000-plus Americans who died over there, and you wonder, what was that all about? What was that moral obligation all about? So, again, we haven't learned from the past. The specter is always raised that calamities will happen if we don't follow what the President wants. Well, the President is not always right. This President and his colleagues here couldn't be more wrong about our course in Iraq. So I have come to the floor this evening on behalf of many Iowans who have been calling and e-mailing my office. The overwhelming majority of people in my State have turned against the war in Iraq, as have the overwhelming majority of Americans elsewhere. According to a USA Today/ Gallup poll released last week, 71 percent of Americans favor removing all U.S. troops from Iraq by April 1 of next year. The American people are sick of seeing our brave men and women killed and maimed in what has become a vicious civil war in Iraq. They want to chart a new course in Iraq, a course out of that civil war. They simply can't believe President Bush and his allies in this body have responded to their wishes with a strategy of obstruction, filibuster, and veto threats. They can't believe Republican Senators here are blocking votes on the No. 1 issue before our Nation, the No. 1 issue on the minds of the American people. All we are asking of our Republican colleagues is let us vote. Let us vote up or down on whether we want to extricate ourselves from Iraq and bring the troops home. In a nutshell, people have been calling my office saying that Republican Senators certainly have a right to support President Bush's war in Iraq, they have a right to advocate that we stay the course, but our Republican colleagues should not claim a right to block simple up-or-down votes on amendments calling for a new course in Iraq. The President and his allies are demanding we wait until September before we act, but this is the same game of obstruction and delay they have been playing for years now. Time and again, the President has announced a new plan, a new strategy for victory in Iraq. Time and again, the President has asked for patience. Time and again, he has cited progress and suggested that success is just around the corner. Sounds just like Vietnam. Meanwhile, with each new plan, with every new strategy, the United States gets dragged deeper and deeper into the quagmire in Iraq. More Americans get killed and maimed, more innocent Iraqi men, women, and children are killed and wounded, and Iraq spirals deeper into chaos and sectarian division. Sounds just like Vietnam. The President's spokesmen insult our intelligence, saying that the surge is only a couple weeks old, that we should give it a chance. As we all know, it was announced in January, more than 6 months ago. I remember very well because 1 day after the President announced his surge, 640 soldiers from the 133rd Infantry of the Iowa National Guard were told they would not be coming home from Anbar Province as planned. Instead, their combat tour would be extended to 16 months--nearly a year and a half in the middle of the most deadly combat in Iraq. Since the surge began back in January, 615 more U.S. troops have died in Iraq. Many thousands more have been injured. Since the surge was announced, eight more soldiers from Iowa have been killed in Iraq, including a second soldier from the small town of Tipton, IA. Think about that, a small community of 3,100 people in rural Iowa has lost two of its sons in Iraq. On Sunday, the Washington Post published a story about Tipton, IA, and its growing disillusionment with the war in Iraq. The story noted that in the first 6 months of this year--since the surge began--125 troops from 10 Midwestern States have died in Iraq, the bloodiest stretch of the war so far. Mr. President, as more and more Iowans and other Americans turn against this war, as more and more of our young men and women are killed and wounded, the administration asks us to be patient. But patience is not a virtue in the face of a manifestly failed policy, and there is no virtue in staying the course when the course you are on is dragging you deeper and deeper into a geopolitical disaster. Just last week, the administration issued the required progress report on benchmarks for Iraq. As expected, the report shows that the Government in Baghdad has failed to meet any of the benchmarks for political and economic reform. The Iraqis have failed to make progress in passing a law governing the sharing of oil revenues. They have failed to make progress in allowing former Baath party members to return to their jobs. They have failed to make progress in disarming militias. They have failed to make progress in organizing new provincial elections. Failure after failure after failure. Indeed, the only thing the Sunni, Shiites and the Kurds in Parliament have agreed on is that they will go on vacation in the month of August. The American people refuse to be patient in the face of this monumental failure. And I agree wholeheartedly with Senator Lugar's remarks on this floor to the effect that we cannot and should not wait until September to begin to chart a new course. The war has been spiraling downward for 52 months. What possible difference could 2 months make? Indeed, I can predict right now what will happen when we get General Petraeus's report in mid-September. Against all evidence to the contrary, the President will cherry-pick the report to claim positive military results from the surge, and he will say those results justify staying the course until the end of the year or into next spring or for another year. Indeed, yesterday, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said the surge could well be followed by a request for even more troops. I was told today that about 50 percent of our troops in Iraq are now National Guard and reservists. Well, it is abundantly clear to me that this President has no intention whatsoever of changing course or reducing the number of troops in Iraq through the end of his term on January 20, 2009. He will only change course when and if he is compelled to do so by the Congress, and that is exactly what a clear majority of the Senate is attempting to do with amendments to this Defense authorization bill. The Levin-Reed amendment was basically passed by the House. But now, Republican Senators here will not allow us to vote on it. All we are asking is to let us vote up or down on the Levin-Reed amendment. The President and his allies are responding with a furious campaign of obstruction, filibuster, and veto threats. They refuse to listen. They refuse to learn. They refuse to consider a new direction. All we are asking is, let us vote. Let us vote. I personally know many Iowans serving in our Armed Forces. Whether Active Duty or the Guard or Reserve, they are disciplined professionals who love their country. Even those who profoundly disagree with the war and the surge will continue to do their duty. They deserve our profound respect and admiration. But we need to listen to them. We need to listen to their families. So I have come to the floor tonight to read just a few of the e-mails and letters I have received in recent days. One of them is from Peggy-- I won't use her last name--from Council Bluffs, IA, whose son is serving in Iraq, and here is what she writes: My 19-year-old son is in Iraq with the United States Army. Please, please get us out of this horrific nightmare and bring them all home. I can't go a day without crying, as I worry about him. Every single member of our brave military that dies in this quagmire is a waste, a tragic waste of life. If my son were to be killed over there, I could never reconcile to it due to the fact that we should not be over there in the first place. We invaded a country based on lies and have caused the death and suffering of untold thousands of Iraqi people. Please vote to withdraw the troops. Peggy, all I can tell you is that is what we are trying to do. We are trying to get a vote up or down to get your son and the troops out of Iraq and bring them home. But our Republican colleagues will not allow us to have that vote. I received the following letter from Regina--again, I will not use her last name--from Bloomfield, IA. She writes: While reading some articles yesterday, I ran across several stating the possibility of extending even more the tours of duty of our soldiers in Iraq. Is there anybody thinking about these soldiers other than how many live in a day and how many die? Do they understand how hard this is on these soldiers, and costly to our Government? And more important, the tremendous pain and agony on the families of these troops? Have you ever been in a war zone for an extended time, or members of your family--in Vietnam, Kuwait or Iraq? . . . If you sense frustration here, it is. [I feel it] every time we lose a soldier over there for something we can never win. . . . I have never taken as much to heart, and fear for my grandchildren. . . . Where is the common sense of our country? Regina, we are here, pleading with our Republican colleagues for common sense. Let us vote up or down on the Levin-Reed amendment, that is all we ask. That is what all these letters are asking, basically. Let me read portions of a letter from Barbara of Waverly. I sit here to write this letter, not knowing why, since I'm feeling like no one cares anymore or will be able to do anything about it. I am a 41-year-old woman, a military wife of 23 years and a mother of 3. My husband's unit is currently serving in Iraq and has been gone for 16 months so far on this mission. The soldiers and the families were finally feeling like we were seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. As the new year began, we started our countdown for our reunions expected in April. Our worlds came crashing down once again as we learned that our loved ones would not be coming home in April but were being extended until August, thus being deployed for almost 2 years by the time they return. I am angry, I am devastated. How could this happen? I have lost all hope and faith in our Government. I don't understand politics, so my biggest question is, if so many people are against this war and the increase in troops being sent over, then why is the President not listening? Doesn't he care? I voted for him and believed in him and he has let me down. . . .Please think about the effects this is having on our soldiers and their families. We have all given so much and though we are proud to have been part of serving our country, it is time for our soldiers to come home. Please, bring them home. Barbara, all I can say is that is what we are trying to do. All we are asking is that we be allowed to vote up or down on the Levin-Reed amendment. Let me read excerpts from one more letter. That is why I am reading these. There are probably a lot of things I can say about this issue, but I think it is more poignant to read the letters from Iowans, people who have been tragically touched by this war. This one is from a mother in Dows, IA. I have a 19-year-old son, my only child, who is fighting in Iraq. He is a smart, strong and brave infantry soldier. He has always wanted to be a soldier and is proud to serve in the United States Army. He is our pride and joy. Heaven forbid if anything happens to him in Iraq, my husband and I will be crushed beyond measure. . . . My point in telling you all this is that we are talking about young lives that have a bright future. This is not some political game. Why should our Government put our soldiers' lives at risk for a civil war in Iraq? Like it or not, that's what it is, a civil war, and our precious soldiers are smack dab in the middle of it. . . . Why should our soldiers be losing limbs and even dying for a group of people who can't get along and will probably never get along? Iraq did not attack us. . . . Things are going from bad to worse in Iraq. . . . Unless you have a loved one fighting in Iraq, you can't begin to understand how difficult it is. It is time to get the troops back home and back to their families. Every one of these soldiers who have died meant ``everything'' to someone. They were a husband, wife, son, daughter, grandchild or close friend to someone. . . .I am neither a Republican nor Democrat, I am just an American mother who wants this violent war stopped and to get our soldiers home safe. I can say to this mother, that is what we are trying to do. We are trying to get a vote. Let us vote. Let us vote up or down on a deadline for getting our troops out of Iraq. What are the Republicans so afraid of? Why are they so afraid to let the Senate express its will? I want all of our colleagues to listen especially closely to the final words from this soldier's mother. This is from Dows, IA. She writes: With the overwhelming majority of the American people wanting to bring our soldiers home and stop the war, don't you think, since you actually work for the American people and are elected by the American people, that you should seriously consider our views and hear our voices? Someone told me I was wasting my time writing this letter, but I believe otherwise. I want my voice heard and isn't this what democracy and freedom are all about? I plead with you with all my heart that you will consider this and do what is best for our troops, their families, and the United States. That is the end of that letter. Yes, you are right, we actually work for the American people. Your voices should be heard. That is what democracy and freedom is all about. Yet we are not being allowed to have your voices heard here on the Senate floor in terms of a vote. Because of the Republican filibuster, we can't. Once again, all we are asking is a very simple request from our Republican colleagues: Let us vote up or down. Why are you so afraid of that? The letters and e-mails coming to my office are heartbreaking. They tell the story of lives disrupted, lives put at risk, lives in a war that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe was a tragic mistake. Now 6 months into a surge that has failed to significantly reduce the violence in Iraq, 6 months into a surge that has utterly failed to bring about any progress or reconciliation within the Iraqi Government, Republicans in the Senate are pulling out the stops to block a simple up-or-down vote on charting a new course in Iraq. Once again, I plead, I ask, let us vote. Let us vote. All we are asking is just that opportunity, a simple up-or-down vote. Let us have the vote. Frankly, I was shocked last week when Republicans on the other side of the aisle filibustered Senator Webb's amendment which was even supported by the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner. The amendment would only have required that active-duty troops receive as much time at home recuperating and training as they spend deployed in combat. The amendment even allowed for a Presidential waiver if the troops were needed for an emergency. This ought to have been an amendment to have drawn strong bipartisan support. After all, many troops in Iraq are now in their third or even fourth deployment. The Army Chief of Staff has warned Congress that the current pace of combat deployment threatens to ``break'' the Army. The Webb amendment would have passed if we had been allowed a simple up-or-down vote, a majority vote. Isn't that what we believe in? We believe in a majority vote. Majority votes elect the President. Majority votes here pass bills. There was a majority here to pass the Webb amendment, but because the Republicans filibustered it, we needed 60 votes. We couldn't get an up-or-down vote on that amendment. The wives and mothers and family members who have written to me and whose words I placed here in the Record tonight have their own idea of what it means to support the troops. They believe it means allowing the Senate to have a straight up-or-down vote on these amendments to ensure decent treatment of our troops. They believe it means allowing a straight up-or-down vote on whether we need to have a new direction in Iraq. But they are being denied this by a willful, obstructionist minority here in the Senate, a minority that believes, frankly, they know better than the American people; a minority that insists on endlessly prolonging a war that the American people want to bring to a close. The American people are not only angry about this war, they are angry the way our brave men and women in uniform have been misused and mistreated. The President rushed our troops into combat without proper equipment and in insufficient numbers. He has insisted on staying the course of that failed policy for more than 4 miserable years. He has sent troops back to Iraq for a third and even fourth rotation, with insufficient time to retrain and regroup. In January he decided to roll the dice one more time by throwing another 30,000 troops into the middle of this sectarian civil war in Baghdad. Now the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is suggesting that come September the President may decide to send even more troops to Iraq. At this point, the single best way to support the troops is to tell President Bush more than 4 years of bungling, bad judgment, and bullheadedness is enough. We have complete and total confidence in our troops, but we have no confidence in your leadership or in pursuing this war any further. This evening we have reached an extraordinary juncture. We have a surge in Iraq now 6 months old which was designed to give the Iraqi Government breathing space for reconciliation. As I said, the only thing the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds in Parliament have agreed on is that they will go on vacation in August. Meanwhile, here in Washington we have a President refusing to listen to the American people, supported by a Republican minority in Congress that is determined to obstruct any legislation charting a new course. If they prevail, if the President and his Republican obstructionists in the Senate prevail, our military units will be deployed again and again and again until they finally break and the United States will stay bogged down and bleeding in Iraq, creating terrorists around the world faster than we could ever hope to kill them. It has reached the point, frankly, where you are either on the side of the President and his failed policies or you side with the American people and our military commanders who have concluded there is no military solution to the mess in Iraq. You either support this endless, pointless war or you support a smarter, more focused campaign against the terrorists who truly threaten us. It is unconscionable that the Republican leader, at the behest of President Bush, is refusing to allow the Senate to vote on changing our course in Iraq. At long last it is time for them to listen to the American people, to the families of our troops in the field. The Senate should be allowed to vote on the No. 1 issue facing this country. It is time the Republicans stop their obstruction to allow the Senate to work its will. It is time for Republicans to let us vote, up or down, simply up or down on the Levin-Reed amendment to chart a new course in Iraq. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in a very beautiful ceremony in the Rotunda of the Capitol this morning, Dr. Norman Borlaug was presented with the Congressional Gold Medal, America's highest civilian award. Dr. Borlaug, of course, as we know, is the father of the Green Revolution and the winner of the Nobel Peace Price in 1970. In 1986 he established a World Food Prize, which is headquartered in my home State of Iowa, to recognize individuals who have improved the quality, quantity, and availability of food around the globe. Dr. Borlaug was born and raised in Iowa, earned his Ph.D. in plant pathology and genetics at the University of Minnesota in 1942. After graduation he went to work in Mexico where he developed high-yield, disease-resistant varieties of wheat, which dramatically increased food production. He then went on to introduce these and other high-yield wheat varieties in Pakistan and India, which had the effect of nearly doubling production in those countries, saving countless lives. It was pointed out this morning that in the previous 4,000 years, rice production in those countries had leveled off, but in the 4 years after Dr. Borlaug introduced his new strains of rice, they actually doubled that production. Yields that had been basically unchanged for 4,000 years, they doubled in 4 years with new genetics and practices. Iowans are a humble people. But we are very proud of the long line of Iowans who have been extraordinary leaders in bringing food to a hungry world, people such as Herbert Hoover, Henry C. Wallace, Henry A. Wallace, and first and foremost, Dr. Norman Borlaug. When I think of Dr. Borlaug's achievements, I am reminded of those famous words in the Book of Proverbs: Where there is no vision, the people perish. More than half a century ago, Dr. Borlaug surveyed a world where starvation and malnourishment were rampant. And he had a vision of a Green Revolution. Because of that vision, upwards of 1 billion lives were saved across the globe, which is an accomplishment of staggering proportions. Well, that's not bad for a kid who began his education in a one-room rural schoolhouse near Cresco, IA. Norman Borlaug has been called a great scientist, a great agronomist, and a great humanitarian. Of course, he is all of those things. He is also a great persuader, a man who time and again overcame political and cultural challenges in order to spread his revolution, first in Mexico, then in Asia, and now Africa. The good news is that at the age of 93, Dr. Borlaug is still going strong, still curious and creative, still full of dreams for changing the world. As I said, he started the World Food Prize and has devoted a great deal of time and energy to strengthen and elevate that initiative with crucial help from John Ruan of Des Moines. There is, for example, the World Food Prize Borlaug-Ruan Internship Program, in which young people, about 100 every year, take part. They present papers on research in different parts of the world, and then a number are chosen and are sent as interns to places around the world to learn and begin the process, as Norman Borlaug did, of working with people to expand food production. Let me just read from one paragraph of Norman Borlaug's statement on the occasion of the Congressional Gold Medal ceremony this morning on July 17. He ended his remarks by saying: My plea today to the members of Congress and to the Administration is to re-commit the United States to more dynamic and generous programs of official development assistance in agriculture for Third World nations, as was done in the 1960s and 1970s. Ever-shrinking foreign aid budgets in support of smallholder agriculture, and especially to multilateral research and development organizations such as the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) where I have worked for 40 years, as well as its sister research institutes under the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), are not in our nation's best interest, nor do they represent our finest traditions. In other words, he is saying cuts to these programs that we are making are not in our Nation's best interests and do not represent our finest traditions. As you chart the course of this great nation Dr. Borlaug tells us-- for the future benefit of our children, grand-children, and great-grandchildren, I ask you to think more boldly and humanely about the Third World and develop a new version of the Marshall plan, this time not to rescue a war-torn Europe, but now to help the nearly one billion, mostly rural poor people still trapped in hunger and misery. It is within America's technical and financial power to help end this human tragedy and injustice, if we set our hearts and minds to the task. One more thing that Norman Borlaug said this morning, is this: When people are in misery and they are hungry and they do not have enough to eat, all kinds of ``isms'' begin to flourish, including terrorism. He said, if we really want to get at the root cause of terrorism and the recruitment of terrorists, feed a hungry world. Make sure everyone has enough to eat. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the full statement of Norman E. Borlaug on the occasion of his receiving the Congressional Gold Medal this morning.

Mr. HARKIN. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Nikhil Sahai and Lauren Hughes of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to reiterate my intention, along with the senior Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, and the senior Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Hagel, to offer legislation to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Now, again, we have decided not to offer the measure on the bill before us, the National Defense Authorization Act. But we certainly will be offering it as an amendment to the Defense appropriations bill when that bill comes to the floor. One way or another, we intend to get this legislation passed this year. I think there is remarkable agreement on the need to find a way to close this prison. All our closest allies have urged that Guantanamo be closed, as have many leaders from across the political spectrum in the United States. Last June, after three detainees committed suicide in a single day, President Bush acknowledged the prison has damaged America's reputation abroad. He said: No question, Guantanamo sends a signal to some of our friends--provides an excuse, for example, to say the United States is not upholding the values that they are trying to encourage other countries to adhere to. The President said: I'd like to close Guantanamo. More recently, Secretary of Defense Bob Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have urged the prison be shut down. On March 23, the Washington Post, citing ``senior administration officials,'' reported that Secretary Gates had ``repeatedly argued that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had become so tainted abroad that legal proceedings at Guantanamo would be viewed as illegitimate.'' According to the Post, Secretary Gates ``told President Bush and others that it should be shut down as quickly as possible.'' Let's make no mistake about it; the current detainees at Guantanamo do include a number of extremely dangerous terrorists, with the determination and ability--if given the opportunity--to inflict harm upon the United States and its citizens. Among the detainees are 14 senior leaders of al-Qaida, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who has confessed to being a mastermind of the September 11 attacks, as well as others. We must--and we can--hold these enemy combatants in maximum security conditions elsewhere. But the critics of Guantanamo are right. The 5-year-old prison at Guantanamo is a stain on the honor of our country. By holding people at Guantanamo without charge, without judicial review, without appropriate legal counsel--and in the past subjecting many of them to what amounts to torture, regardless of how you want to dress it up--by doing all those things, we have forfeited the moral high ground and stand as hypocrites in the eyes of the world. As Secretary Gates has argued, any legal proceedings or convictions now taking place on Guantanamo will be viewed as illegitimate in the eyes of the world. Perhaps most seriously, from a pragmatic standpoint, maintaining the prison at Guantanamo is simply counterproductive. It has become a propaganda bonanza and recruitment tool for Islamic fundamentalists. It alienates our friends and allies. It detracts from our ability to regain the moral high ground and rally the world against the terrorists who threaten us. The administration has repeatedly described detainees at Guantanamo as ``the worst of the worst,'' or, as former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, once described them, the ``most dangerous, best- trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth.'' Unquestionably, some of the detainees fit these descriptions. However, an exhaustive study of Guantanamo detainees conducted by the nonpartisan and highly regarded National Journal, last year, came to the following conclusions: A large percentage--perhaps the majority--of the detainees were not captured on any battlefield, let alone on ``the battlefield in Afghanistan,'' as President Bush once asserted. Secondly, fewer than--fewer than--20 percent of the detainees have ever been al-Qaida members. Third, many scores--and perhaps hundreds--of the detainees were not even Taliban foot soldiers, let alone al-Qaida members. Fourth, the majority of the people at Guantanamo were not captured by U.S. forces but, rather, handed over by reward-seeking Pakistanis and Afghan warlords and by villagers of highly dubious reliability. For example, one of the detainees in Guantanamo is a man who was conscripted by the Taliban to work as an assistant cook. The U.S. Government's ``evidence'' against this detainee consists, in its entirety, of the following--keep in mind, the evidence against this detainee consists, in its entirety, of the following-- a. Detainee is associated with the Taliban. i. The detainee indicates that he was conscripted into the Taliban. b. Detainee engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or its coalition partners. i. The detainee admits he was a cook's assistant for Taliban forces in Narim, Afghanistan under the command of Haji Mullah Baki. ii. Get this-- ii. Detainee fled from Narim to Kabul during the Northern Alliance attack and surrendered to the Northern Alliance. That is it. That is the evidence they have against this detainee. He was forced by the Taliban to be a cook. When he saw his opportunity to get out of there, he escaped and went to the northern forces and surrendered to them. Now he sits in Guantanamo. What kind of justice is this? Well, the situation at Guantanamo is rather personal with me. Not only was I stationed there for some time back when I was a Navy pilot-- and I have since been back, of course, to visit--but more personal, in July of 1970, I was a rather young staff person for the Select Committee on U.S. Involvement in Southeast Asia of the House of Representatives. I was working with a congressional delegation on a factfinding mission to Vietnam in the summer of 1970, and through a series of circumstances--and because of the bravery of a young Vietnamese man who had been in the tiger cages on Con Son Island and who was let out--now, why was he let out? Because usually when you got to the tiger cages, you were never seen again. Well, the South Vietnamese had these prisons put up on Con Son Island. Actually, they were built by the French when the French ruled Indo-China. So the French built these prisons on an island off the coast. The Vietnamese took them over and then built these so-called tiger cages, which were hidden within the prison so no one could find them. Cao Nguyen Loi was sentenced to the tiger cages because he led a student protest at Saigon University. He was the student leader at Saigon University in 1969, early 1970. Because he led a protest against the war, the police picked him up. The South Vietnamese Army picked him up and sent him out to Con Son Island. No one knew who he was. But the students refused to go back to class until their student leader was released. It was time to take the exams, and this was a big deal for families. They were putting pressure on the university, and finally the Government let Cao Nguyen Loi go. They told him at the time, though, that if he ever said anything, they would kill his brother because his brother was also in the tiger cages. Well, this young man, very bravely, sought me out, along with Don Luce. Don Luce was a young man who I think at that time had been working for the World Council of Churches in Vietnam. If I am not mistaken, I think he was a native of Vermont. Yes, Don Luce was a native of the State of Vermont. He had been over there teaching the Vietnamese how to grow sweet potatoes, agricultural things. Well, Don Luce had known this young man. I had sought out Don Luce because Luce had written a book about Vietnam called ``Vietnam--The Unheard Voices.'' So in preparation for this trip to Vietnam, I read the book because I felt that Congressmen should hear both sides. So I read this book. I never met Don Luce before, but I was intrigued by this book, that there was a large sector--I questioned at the time--of South Vietnamese who were opposed to the war. We were led to believe quite differently, of course. So Don Luce brought this young man to see me to tell me about the existence of the tiger cages. These tiger cages had been rumored for a long time. In fact, the year before, in 1969, a young Congressman by the name of John Conyers went over with a Congressman, I believe it was Father Drinan, Bob Drinan, and they had inquired about the existence of the tiger cages. They were told this was Communist propaganda, no such thing existed. Our military denied it. The Nixon administration denied it. The South Vietnamese Government denied it: There was no such thing. This was Communist propaganda. Well, this young man, who came to see me, said: They are out there because I was in them. But they told me if I talked, they would kill my brother, so I have to place my trust in you because someone has to expose them. I said: Well, I don't know if I could or not because I would have to get a couple of Congressmen to go out there. It was on an island. We had to get a plane, fly out to this remote island. It would take a whole day. Then he told me: You would not find them unless you have a map. I will draw you a map. So he sat down and he drew me a map of how to find the tiger cages. He said: Because, you see, there are a lot of prison camps on Con Son Island. There are about five different prison camps and they all look the same. Unless you know what you are looking for, you will never find the tiger cages, because they are in one prison camp and you have to know how to find them. He drew me a map. He couldn't quite remember exactly, but he knew to look for these certain symbols, these certain signs, these certain things he remembered. So I took the map. I then went to see Congressman Gus Hawkins of California and laid this out for him and said there might be a possibility that we could find out once and for all whether these tiger cages existed. He said he would go. We needed another Congressman. William Anderson, Congressman William R. Anderson from Tennessee, when he heard the story, said: I will go. Keep in mind, Congressman William R. Anderson had until that time been a supporter of the Vietnam war. He wrote a book once, which is one of my favorite books. It was called ``Nautilus 90 North.'' This same Congressman Anderson was the first skipper of the first nuclear submarine called the Nautilus. He was a very famous guy at the time because he was the first one who took a nuclear sub underneath the North Pole and he wrote a book about the Nautilus submarine called ``Nautilus 90 North.'' He retired from the Navy and was elected to the House from Tennessee. Congressman Anderson, Congressman Hawkins, and I took off with Don Luce. We went out to the islands. I am not going to give you the whole story, but armed with the map, we were able to find the tiger camps. When we found them, we were told by one Red Walton, who was the USAID director--public safety director--that we had no business being there. Oh, I might say, before we got out there, this same Red Walton had told us these prison camps were more like a Boy Scout camp. They took us to some of the prison camps and they weren't all that bad for prisons, I guess. But again, armed with a map, we found the tiger cages and the suffering that we saw there, the inhumanity we saw there, was something you never shake. I was armed with a camera. I had my camera, so I took pictures. Of course, we had two Congressmen, William Anderson and Gus Hawkins, there. Armed with that information and coming back to the States, we published the pictures and got the story out. It became a worldwide story. The prisoners were released because of the pressure that was put upon the South Vietnamese government. They then began to tell their stories. But there was one picture I took that was in Life Magazine. It was of a young Buddhist monk who looked up through the bars of these tiger cages as we looked down on him, and he said in Vietnamese--we had Don Luce as an interpreter--he said: I am here for only one reason: Because I speak out for peace, and no matter how long I stay here, I will continue to speak out for peace. I took a picture of that young Buddhist monk. Yet before the prisoners were all released, he was beaten to death. While I have since gone back to Con Son Island and visited his grave, the tiger cages are now a memorial, like a museum for people to see, of all the horrors they inflicted on so many hundreds of people. People were shackled together in awful conditions--awful conditions. This weekend I was handed a paper done by Vaughan Bagley. I visited with her. She was doing a paper on the tiger cages of Con Son. She wrote a paper about it. She did some very good research. Vaughan is a high school student, but she did a lot of great research. She went back and looked at all of the congressional hearings that were held on this, and she quoted Representative Hawkins. Representative Hawkins stated at the congressional hearings in 1970: Con Son is a symbol of how some American officials will cooperate in corruption and torture because they too want to see the war continued and the government they put in power protected. Well, as she went on to point out, she said: Unfortunately, however, in their democratic crusade, America lost the very principles of freedom and equality that they purported to defend, and ultimately violated Article 13 of the Geneva Accords of 1949. A former prisoner testified that the clear violation of these principles: No matter what medical problem the prisoner has: TB, Diphtheria, he is still thrown in with all the others who are not sick, all eat out of the same bowl, sleep together, shackled to the same rope. I know of no other place on Earth where human lives are so cheap as in Con Son. Congressman Hawkins argued: Con Son is the type of not looking at our own faults and atrocities that endangers our American prisoners of war held by the Communists. Vaughan Bagley did a great job on her research. What she pointed out in her paper was that in our pursuit of democratic ideals and democracy around the world, we can't condone, harbor, or support places like the tiger cages of Con Son Island, Abu Ghraib, or Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. I tell this story because now I think my colleagues get some idea of why I feel so strongly about Guantanamo. It has for me the same smell, the same awful vision of Con Son Island. You see, in both cases these prisons were off on remote islands. Why? Well, to keep away the press, to keep people from asking questions about what was going on. Once you were taken off the island, chances are you were never seen again. That is what has happened at Guantanamo. Guantanamo has become the United States Con Son Island. It has become like the tiger cages on Con Son Island. The more the world knows about it, the harder it is for us to argue from kind of a morally high standpoint of supporting the Geneva Conventions or the rule of law. Well, at the time of the discovery of the tiger cages, the United States Government had been insisting that the North Vietnamese abide by the Geneva Conventions. Yet here we were condoning, funding, and supervising the torture not only of Vietnamese prisoners of war but of civilians. People such as this young guide who was caught up and held by the Taliban as a cook, who escaped, who probably didn't want to fight for anybody--a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions. There are disturbing parallels between what transpired on Con Son Island nearly four decades ago and what has happened at Guantanamo in recent years. As I said in both cases, prisons were deliberately set up on remote islands, clearly with the intention of limiting scrutiny and restricting access. In both cases, detainees were not classified as prisoners of war, expressly to deny them the protection of the Geneva Conventions. In both cases, detainees were deprived of any right to due process, judicial review, or a fair trial. They were simply held indefinitely in isolation in legal limbo. In both cases, when the mistreatment of detainees was exposed, the United States stood accused of hypocrisy and of betraying its most sacred values and violating international law. We need to reverse the damage Guantanamo has done to our reputation and to our ability to wage an effective fight against the terrorists who attacked us on September 11 of 2001. The essential first step must be to close the prison at Guantanamo as expeditiously as possible. The legislation that Senator Feinstein, Senator Hagel, and I have would accomplish this within 1 year of the date of enactment. Under the provisions of our legislation, one, the President shall close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. All detainees shall be removed from the facility. No detainee shall be transferred to a detention facility under U.S. custody located outside the United States. We heard all about these other little prisons around the world that, well, maybe they are held by other countries, but they are supervised by us. Our legislation says it can't be transferred there either. No later than 3 months after enactment, the President shall submit a report to Congress describing plans for closing Guantanamo and removing the detainees, and the President shall keep Congress currently informed of steps taken to implement the legislation. That is basically our legislation. It is very clear, very straightforward. As I said, we were going to offer it on the Defense authorization bill. We have all agreed not to do so, but that we definitely will be seeing this coming up on the Defense appropriations. In closing, on this issue, the United States has lost its way both in Iraq and at Guantanamo. We need to wage a smarter, more focused, and more effective fight against the Islamic terrorists who threaten us, and we must do so in ways that do not give credence to the American antipropaganda and do not rally more recruits to their cause. To that end, we must close the prison at Guantanamo as soon as possible. Our amendment has won the enthusiastic endorsement of Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, Amnesty International, and the American Civil Liberties Union. We currently have 14 bipartisan cosponsors here in the Senate. I urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation. Levin-Reed Amendment Before I yield the floor, I also want to talk for a minute on the bill--the Levin-Reed amendment--because I think it offers the best prospect for accomplishing the goals of a more focused and effective campaign against the terrorists. For 4 long years, President Bush has said that as the Iraqis step up to their responsibilities, the United States will be able to step down. Today it is painfully clear that the opposite is the case. The Iraqi military and Government will only step up to their responsibilities once it is clear that the United States is stepping down. The Levin- Reed amendment says the United States will begin troop redeployment within 120 days and remove most American combat forces from Iraq by April of next year. This acknowledges what has long been obvious to our commanders: There can be no military solution to the mess in Iraq. At the same time, by signaling our intention to redeploy by next spring, we will create powerful incentives to force compromise within the deadlocked Iraqi Government and to compel Iraq's neighbors to play a more active and constructive role in pacifying that country. Again, I say this only of myself, but there is no guarantee this approach will work--will succeed. There is no guarantee the Iraqis will be willing or able to compromise and come together in a genuine government of national reconciliation. However, the only certainty is that our current force is a formula for more failure, more deadlock within the Iraqi Government, more death and destruction for both Iraq and America. New developments this past week have driven home the urgency of the change of course proposed by the Levin-Reed amendment. Last week, we learned we are now spending an astronomical $10 billion a month in Iraq. Last week, the administration issued the required progress report on the benchmarks for Iraq. What did it show? It showed the Government in Baghdad has failed to meet any of the benchmarks for political and economic reform. The Iraqis have failed to make progress in passing a law governing the sharing of oil revenues. They have failed to make progress in allowing former Baath Party members to return to their jobs. They have failed to make progress in disarming the militias. They have failed to make progress in organizing new provincial elections. Indeed, the only thing the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds have agreed upon in Parliament is that they will go on vacation during the month of August. Now, there was one glimmer of good news in the report, and that was, the U.S. military has had some success since January in improving the security situation, although the overall levels of violence and mayhem are unchanged. Well, limited success should come as no surprise to anybody. We all appreciate the professionalism, courage, and capability of our Armed Forces. It would be astonishing if an additional 30,000 troops didn't see at least some small improvement in security. There is one unfortunate thing about this. These modest gains are all being accomplished by U.S. troops, not Iraqis. Because the surge is not sustainable, even these modest gains are ephemeral. Meanwhile, a new report by the National Counterterrorism Center concludes that al-Qaida has grown stronger than at any time since 9/11. In other words, while the U.S. military and intelligence assets have been massively sidetracked in Iraq over the last 4 years, al-Qaida has been able to regroup elsewhere, with most in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As a CIA Deputy Director of Intelligence told a House committee: We see more al-Qaida training, more al-Qaida money, and more al-Qaida communication. Indeed, the U.S. invasion of Iraq has been the gift that keeps on giving to al-Qaida. There was no al-Qaida presence in Iraq before the invasion. Now a home-grown organization, loosely affiliated with al- Qaida, calling themselves ``al-Qaida in Mesopotamia,'' has emerged. What's more, as previous intelligence reports have concluded, America's ongoing occupation of Iraq has been a powerful recruitment tool not only for al-Qaida, but for many new extremist organizations, some of them sprouting up spontaneously in western countries, including Britain and Spain. So, Mr. President, we have reached an extraordinary juncture regarding the current failed policy in Iraq. We have reached the point, frankly, where either you side with the President and his demand that we stay the course in pursuit of what he calls victory--although the President has never really defined what that victory is--or you side with the American people and our military commanders who have concluded that there is no military solution in Iraq. You either support this endless, pointless war or you support a smaller, more focused campaign against the terrorists who truly threaten us. Those are the choices in the current Senate debate. On our side of the aisle, we Democrats and the American people have made our choice to chart a new direction. I am confident that as more and more of our friends on the other side of the aisle make that choice in the days and weeks ahead, we will ultimately prevail. The conflict in Iraq can only be solved through political compromise and reconciliation in Baghdad and through aggressive diplomatic engagement with Iraq's neighbors and across the Middle East. So it is time to chart a new course. The approach embodied in the Levin-Reed amendment offers us our best hope for extricating ourselves from this quagmire in Iraq and retaking the offensive against al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. I am proud to be a cosponsor, and I urge all my colleagues to support the Levin-Reed amendment.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today we recognize a distinguished executive at the Social Security Administration, Dale W. Sopper. Dale is the Deputy Commissioner for Budget, Finance and Management. He is a dedicated public servant who has served his country in public service for 42 years. A native of Allentown, PA, he began his Federal career as a claims insurance specialist in the local Social Security Office in Kansas City, MO. After 2 years, he was selected for the Management Intern Program at the then-Department of Health, Education and Welfare. He served in a number of increasingly responsible positions there and in the Department of Health and Human Services over the next 16 years, ultimately serving as HHS' Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget. Dale returned to the Social Security Administration in 1983 as the Deputy Associate Commissioner for Management, Budget and Personnel. In his current position as Deputy Commissioner for Budget, Finance and Management, Dale is responsible for providing executive leadership and direction in administering: a comprehensive financial program of budget policy, formulation and execution; accounting policy and operations; the agency's acquisition and grants program; audit resolution and liaison; the internal controls program; agencywide facilities and publications management programs; and the agency's efforts to improve annual wage reporting and wage reconciliation activities. In addition, Dale serves as SSA's chief financial officer, senior procurement executive and principal deputy ethics counselor. During Dale's long and distinguished career with both agencies, he has received many awards--of special note, the Presidential Rank Awards for Distinguished Executive and Meritorious Executive, the Donald Scantlebury Memorial Award, the Elmer Staats Award and the Frank Greathouse Distinguished Leadership Award. Dale will retire from the Social Security Administration on August 3, 2007. He is an exceptional career executive who has consistently demonstrated strength, integrity, diligence and a relentless commitment to public service and the well-being of our citizens across the Nation. Through his extraordinary leadership and achievements, he has inspired countless men and women with whom he has worked over these past 42 years. It is important that we in Congress recognize the many men and women who devote their working lives to improve the lives of others. Career civil servants often do their work in quiet anonymity behind the scenes providing vital service to the American people. They are rarely recognized for their important contribution. Dale Sopper is one of those people. His record of leadership at the Social Security Administration and his commitment to providing the American people with effective and compassionate service is a record of which he can be justly proud. I wish Dale all the best in his retirement from Federal service and thank him for his many years of dedicated service.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, culminating many months of consultation with health experts and business, Senator Gordon Smith and I will introduce the Healthy Workforce Act. The aim of this bill is to help American businesses to provide a whole range of opportunities for their employees to live healthier lives. The idea is to make it easier for businesses to push more of their health care investments upstream, helping their employees to get healthy an stay healthy, and to stay out of the hospital. Corporate America traditionally has not been a major player in the field of wellness and disease prevention. But that is rapidly changing as you can tell by the presence of these important business leaders, here, this morning. This is extremely encouraging. Because corporate America has the expertise, the resources, and the enlightened self- interest to make a huge difference in the way we approach health care in this country. So, in introducing this bill, Senator Smith and I are making something of a business proposition, a proposal for a partnership. We believe that the Federal Government needs to provide incentives in the form of tax credits and, in return, we want corporate America to step more boldly into the field of wellness and disease prevention. Here is what the Healthy Workforce Act would do. It would give a 50- percent tax credit to businesses that offer a qualified comprehensive wellness program to their employees. For a company to receive the 50- percent credit, the employee wellness program must include three of the following four components: First, a health awareness and education component, which could include health risk assessments and screenings. Second, a behavioral change component, for instance: counseling, seminars, or self-help materials to help employees to lead healthier lifestyles. Third, a supportive environment component. This might include offering meaningful incentives to participating employees, for example, a reduction in health premiums, or allowing employees to exercise during the workday. And fourth, creation of an employee engagement committee, which would tailor the wellness program to the needs of the workforce at a particular company. I am pleased that the Healthy Workforce Act already has the support of the American Heart Association, the Coalition on Catastrophic and Chronic Health Care Costs, and a whole range of other public health groups and others in the business community. As I said, employee wellness is a matter of enlightened corporate self-interest. Employees who are fit are less likely to call in sick. They have more energy and self-confidence. They are more resistant to stress. They have better attitudes. Obviously, corporate America also has a profound interest in keeping down health insurance costs. But businesses can't get this job done alone. It is high time for the Federal Government to step up to the plate in a very robust way. And that is exactly what the Healthy Workforce Act is all about. In conclusion, I just want to emphasize, again, that this bill is the product of a pretty amazing collaboration. There is tremendous expertise and good will in both the business community and in the public health community. Their ideas and input have made this a better bill. And I deeply appreciate their assistance. I look forward to continuing this partnership and working to pass this critically needed legislation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, culminating many months of consultation with health experts and business, Senator Gordon Smith and I will introduce the Healthy Workforce Act. The aim of this bill is to help American businesses to provide a whole range of opportunities for their employees to live healthier lives. The idea is to make it easier for businesses to push more of their health care investments upstream, helping their employees to get healthy an stay healthy, and to stay out of the hospital. Corporate America traditionally has not been a major player in the field of wellness and disease prevention. But that is rapidly changing as you can tell by the presence of these important business leaders, here, this morning. This is extremely encouraging. Because corporate America has the expertise, the resources, and the enlightened self- interest to make a huge difference in the way we approach health care in this country. So, in introducing this bill, Senator Smith and I are making something of a business proposition, a proposal for a partnership. We believe that the Federal Government needs to provide incentives in the form of tax credits and, in return, we want corporate America to step more boldly into the field of wellness and disease prevention. Here is what the Healthy Workforce Act would do. It would give a 50- percent tax credit to businesses that offer a qualified comprehensive wellness program to their employees. For a company to receive the 50- percent credit, the employee wellness program must include three of the following four components: First, a health awareness and education component, which could include health risk assessments and screenings. Second, a behavioral change component, for instance: counseling, seminars, or self-help materials to help employees to lead healthier lifestyles. Third, a supportive environment component. This might include offering meaningful incentives to participating employees, for example, a reduction in health premiums, or allowing employees to exercise during the workday. And fourth, creation of an employee engagement committee, which would tailor the wellness program to the needs of the workforce at a particular company. I am pleased that the Healthy Workforce Act already has the support of the American Heart Association, the Coalition on Catastrophic and Chronic Health Care Costs, and a whole range of other public health groups and others in the business community. As I said, employee wellness is a matter of enlightened corporate self-interest. Employees who are fit are less likely to call in sick. They have more energy and self-confidence. They are more resistant to stress. They have better attitudes. Obviously, corporate America also has a profound interest in keeping down health insurance costs. But businesses can't get this job done alone. It is high time for the Federal Government to step up to the plate in a very robust way. And that is exactly what the Healthy Workforce Act is all about. In conclusion, I just want to emphasize, again, that this bill is the product of a pretty amazing collaboration. There is tremendous expertise and good will in both the business community and in the public health community. Their ideas and input have made this a better bill. And I deeply appreciate their assistance. I look forward to continuing this partnership and working to pass this critically needed legislation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Amber Fricke and Theresa Loth of my staff be granted the privileges of the floor for the duration of today's session.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, at the end of this week Robert E. Sturm will retire following a long and distinguished career of exemplary service to the U.S. Senate, most recently as chief clerk of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. We could not have had a more capable, conscientious and dedicated chief clerk for these many years. More important, though, we will miss Bob's friendly helpfulness to each member of our committee, to all of the staff who work on and with our committee and to the many members of the public who follow the work of our committee. Bob Sturm began his service to the Senate 33 years ago in 1974, shortly after graduating from college, as a mail room clerk for Senator Birch Bayh of Bob's home State of Indiana. He served as mailroom clerk and mailroom manager for Senators Dick Clark of Iowa, Donald Stewart of Alabama, and Russell B. Long of Louisiana. For 2 years he was an office systems consultant for the Senate Computer Center where he assisted 14 Senate offices and helped lay the groundwork for today's Senate-wide computer network. Bob served as Senator Patrick Leahy's office manager before he became the financial clerk and systems administrator for the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry in 1987, when Senator Leahy became chairman. Bob was promoted to chief clerk for the committee under Chairman Dick Lugar in 1995 and has held the position under several succeeding chairmen. Of course, I was pleased have Bob continue as chief clerk when I became chairman in 2001. He then continued in that position when Senator Cochran and Senator Chambliss chaired the committee and when I once again became chairman earlier this year. It is a tremendous testament to Bob's abilities, professionalism and dedication that he has served as chief clerk for such a number of chairmen of both parties. For all of these years, we could always count on Bob to take care of all types and any number of details to make sure our committee functioned smoothly. He took responsibility for everything from stocking supplies, to covering the front office, to troubleshooting the computer system, to handling the whole range of committee finances, rules and legislative documents and reports. Bob starts the day early and on many occasions, without hesitation, has stayed late into the night, or even overnight, to do what needed to be done. Thanks to this high level of dedication, we could always be sure that the paperwork and other details were in order for hearings and committee meetings. Also, of special note, Bob very successfully oversaw the recent renovation of our beautiful committee hearing room in the Russell Building. Former Senator Margaret Chase Smith of Maine once said, ``Public service must be more than doing a job efficiently and honestly. It must be a complete dedication to the people and to the Nation.'' Those words perfectly capture the extraordinary dedication of Bob Sturm. We all congratulate Bob on the milestone of his retirement from the Senate. I also thank him for all of his great work and express my gratitude for his friendship and invaluable help to all of us over the years. I am but one of many who wish Bob all the best, with many years of health and happiness, as he begins this new phase in life.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I thank Senator Kennedy for his great leadership on this issue and so many other issues that pertain to the rights of working families in America. There is a need for organized labor in our country. When workers join together and act collectively, they can achieve economic gains and worker safety that they would not be able to get if they negotiated individually. History tells us this: Union members were on the front lines fighting for the 40-hour workweek, paid vacations, minimum wage, employer- provided health insurance and pensions. Organized labor led the way in passing legislation to ensure fair and safe workplaces, and in championing many other safety nets we have such as Social Security, Medicare, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. But, unfortunately, continued forward progress is not inevitable. We have seen in recent years, as union membership has declined, wages have stagnated, the numbers of uninsured have risen, and private companies have been allowed to default on their pensions threatening the retirement security of millions of Americans. It is clear to me that in order to rebuild economic security for the middle class in America, we must first rebuild strong and vibrant unions; and to rebuild strong unions, we must first reduce the unfair barriers to union organizing. A recent study by the Institute for America's Future confirms this by comparing organizing campaigns in the United States and Canada. The study found that more worker-friendly certification rules resulted in increased union participation. But, of course, this is all just common sense. If you reduce the barriers to workers joining unions, more workers will join. What does that mean? Well, as the study made clear, by passing this Employee Free Choice Act, by making it easier for workers to band together, more than 3\1/2\ million Americans would be able to secure health coverage, more than 3 million Americans would have access to employer-based pensions. Middle-class families in this country have an increasingly difficult time making ends meet. More than 47 million lack health insurance, that is including 251,000 Iowans, and even those who get it find it covers less and less. This should not be happening in America. When productivity rises, everyone should see a fair share of the gain. But in the past several years, increasing productivity has gone hand in hand with a growing wage gap. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service: Adjusted for inflation, average worker pay rose 8 percent from 1995 to 2005; but median CEO pay at the 350 largest firms rose 150 percent over the same period. In my home State of Iowa, real median household income fell by 3.4 percent between 1995 and 2005, at the same time productivity increased. So workers are working and becoming more productive, but they are not getting any of their fair share. By passing the Employee Free Choice Act, by giving workers a seat at the table, we can start to reverse this negative trend. Union participation in the workplace means everybody wins. When employees have a voice, not just to ask for better wages and benefits but to make suggestions on how to do things better, employers benefit also. Union employees take pride in their work and they work to get more training. They are happy to help find other efficiencies in the operation because they know if they do they get a share of the savings. Unfortunately, the scaremongers out there are trying to tell us that the Employee Free Choice Act takes away employee rights to a secret ballot. Nothing can be further from the truth. This bill does not establish a new election process. It merely requires employers to honor the employee choice. Right now a company gets to decide whether it will recognize a majority signup vote. Well, why should just the company get to decide that? Why should employees not get to decide that? That is what this bill does. It levels the playing field. It says the employees get to decide as well as the company. If the employees want to use the National Labor Relations Board process, they can do that also. But we know from hard experience--the best teacher, hard experience--that process can be threatening and intimidating to many employees. So in addition to making it easier to form a union in the first place, the Employee Free Choice Act provides for arbitration for the first contract. I know from personal experience how a company can bust a union and cause major hardships for their employees. My brother, Frank, was a member of the UAW for 23 years. He worked at a plant called Delavan in West Des Moines, IA, for 23 years, a proud union member. He had a good job as a machinist, operating machines, made parts for the military, had good pay, good benefits, a good pension. In 23 years he had only missed 5 days of work. In 23 years the union never went on strike, never had a work stoppage. But then Mr. Delavan, the owner, decided to sell the plant. And he sold it to a group of investors. One of those investors bragged openly--it was in the Des Moines Register--if you want to see how to bust a union, come to Delavan, we will show you how. He openly bragged about it. What happened? Well, the investors took over. When the union contract came up, the company put forward conditions with which no union could ever agree. So what was the union forced to do? To go out on strike. For the first time ever in 23 years they went out on strike. Well, then what did the company do? They brought in replacement workers. Then what happened? There was a long bitter strike. I remember it well. After 1 year, as allowed by labor law, they had a decertification vote. Who votes to decertify? Well, the replacement workers. So they voted them out. They did not want to lose their jobs. So they voted to decertify. So after 23 years, my brother Frank was out of a job. He lost his union job with excellent pay, vacation, pension. Now, I ask you, what does a 54-year-old deaf man--and my brother was deaf. He is disabled. What does a 54-year-old deaf man do when he loses that kind of a job? I will tell you what he did. The only job he could get was as a janitor working in a store at night in a shopping mall--minimum wage, no union, no pension, no benefits, nothing. This is a real-life story, folks. That happened to my family. Not only did it just destroy my brother's livelihood, it broke his spirit. That is what happens when unions are weakened and destroyed, jeopardizing our middle-class way of life. That is what is happening today, my friends, to tens of millions of workers all over this country. I will close with this, from a December 2005 letter by 11 Nobel Peace Prize winners: Even the wealthiest nation in the world, the United States of America, fails to adequately protect workers' rights to form unions and bargain collectively. Millions of U.S. workers lack any legal protection to form unions, and thousands are discriminated against every year for trying to exercise these rights. It is time to level the playing field and to give them a truly fair process.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have always supported organized labor, for a simple reason: When workers join together and act collectively, they can achieve economic gains that they would never be able to negotiate individually. History tells us this: Union members were on the front lines fighting for the 40-hour workweek, the minimum wage, employer-provided health insurance and pensions. Organized labor led the way in passing legislation to ensure fair and safe workplaces and in championing many other employee safety nets, including Social Security, Medicare, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. Unfortunately, continued forward progress is not inevitable. We have seen this in recent years, as union membership has declined, wages have stagnated, the numbers of uninsured have risen, and private companies have been allowed to default on their pensions, threatening the retirement security of millions of Americans. It is clear to me that to rebuild economic security, we must first rebuild strong and vibrant unions. And to rebuild strong unions, we must first reduce unfair barriers to union organizing. To rebuild the promise of health care and pension benefits, we must reduce unfair barriers to union organizing. A recent study by the Institute for America's Future confirms this. By comparing organizing campaigns in the United States and Canada, the study found that more worker-friendly certification rules increase union participation. Of course, this is all just common sense. If you reduce the barriers to workers joining unions, more workers will join. But what does it mean? Well, as this study makes clear, by passing the Employee Free Choice Act, and by making it easier for workers to band together, more than 3.5 million Americans would be able to secure health coverage, and nearly 3 million more Americans would have access to employer-based pensions. Middle class families in this country have an increasingly difficult time making ends meet. More than 47 million Americans lack health insurance--including 251,000 Iowans--and even those with coverage find that if often covers less and less. This should not be happening in America. When productivity rises, everyone should see their fair share of that gain, but in the past several years, increasing productivity has gone hand-in-hand with a growing wage gap. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service: Adjusted for inflation, average worker pay rose 8 percent from 1995 to 2005; median CEO pay at the 350 largest firms rose about 150 percent over the same period. In my home State of Iowa, real median household income fell by 3.4 percent between 1999 and 2005, dropping from $48,142 in 1999 to $46,500 in 2005. By passing the Employee Free Choice Act, by giving workers a seat at the table, we can start to reverse this negative trend. Union participation in the workplace means everybody wins. When employees have a voice--not just to ask for better wages and benefits, but to make suggestions about how to do things better--employers benefit, too. Union employees take pride in their work and work to get more training. And they are happy to help find other efficiencies in the operation, because they get a share of the savings. Unfortunately, scaremongers are trying to tell us that the Employee Free Choice Act takes away employee rights to a ``secret ballot.'' Nothing could be further from the truth. This bill does not establish a new election process; it merely requires employers to honor employee choice. Right now, the company gets to decide whether it will recognize a majority sign-up vote. Under the aptly named Employee Free Choice Act, the employees get to decide. If the workers want to use the National Labor Relations Board process, they are perfectly free to do so. But, as we know from hard experience, that process can be threatening and intimidating to many employees. In addition to making it easier to form a union in the first place, the Employee Free Choice Act provides for arbitration for the first contract. I know from personal experience how simply stalling negotiations of a contract can bust a union and cause major economic hardship for people. My brother Frank was a proud UAW member for 23 years. He worked at the old Delavan manufacturing plant in Des Moines. In 23 years, he missed only 5 days of work--all of them because of blizzards. He made a good living. He was a dedicated employee. During those 23 years, there was never one strike or work stoppage. Delavan made good money. But then Old Man Delavan decided to retire and sell the company. A group of investors bought it. And one of the new owners bragged that, ``If you want to see how to get rid of a union, come to Delavan, and we'll show you how.'' He made good on that boast. When the contract came up, the company put forward conditions that no union could agree to in good conscience. The owners refused to budge, and the UAW local had no choice but to go out on strike for the first time. When they did, the company brought in replacement workers. It was a long, bitter strike. And after 1 year as allowed by labor law--they had a decertification vote. Who votes to decertify the union? The workers who are there--the replacement workers. They didn't want to lose their jobs, so they voted to decertify. So after 23 years Frank was out of a job. He lost his union job with excellent pay, vacation time, and a pension. And what does a 54-year- old deaf man do in a predicament like that? He got a job as a janitor at a shopping mall--working nights for minimum wage, with no benefits and no vacation time. It didn't just destroy his livelihood. It broke his spirit. My friends, that is what happens when unions are weakened and destroyed. It jeopardizes our standard of living and our whole middle- class way of life. And, my friends, that is exactly what is happening, today, to tens of millions of people all across America. I quote a December, 2005 letter signed by 11 Nobel Peace Prize laureates calling for greater international labor rights: Even the wealthiest nation in the world--the United States of America--fails to adequately protect workers' rights to form unions and bargain collectively. Millions of U.S. workers lack any legal protection to form unions and thousands are discriminated against every year for trying to exercise these rights. It is time to level the playing field for workers in this country. It is time to give them a truly free and fair election process to decide if they want representation in the workplace. It's time to pass the Employee Free Choice Act.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, June 12, is the annual observance of the International Labor Organization's World Day Against Child Labor. This is the day we set aside each year to speak out against the fact that millions of children around the globe continue to be trapped in forced and abusive labor, often in extremely hazardous conditions. For many years, I have been active in efforts to stop exploitative child labor as well as trafficking in child and female slaves around the world. In my travels, I have seen this scourge firsthand. I have come to the floor of the Senate many times to speak about this issue. I have spoken about how shocked I was to see the deplorable conditions under which these kids are forced to work. Many are physically, emotionally, and sexually abused. All of them, every child engaged in abusive child labor, is deprived of a childhood solely for someone else's gain. Why should we as a nation tolerate children being used in such a manner? We should not. It is a moral outrage and an affront to human dignity. When a child is exploited for the economic gains of others, not only does the child lose, but the family loses, and I think the whole world loses. It is bad economics, and it is bad development strategy. A nation cannot achieve prosperity on the backs of its children, and there must be no place in the global economy for child labor. This year, the World Day Against Child Labor specifically shines a spotlight on child laborers in agriculture. This has been a special concern for me going back many years. I have been especially concerned about forced child labor in the cocoa industry. In 2001, the Knight-Ridder syndicate ran a series of articles on forced child labor on cocoa farms in West Africa. According to one of those articles, child laborers in Ivory Coast ``are whipped, beaten, and broken like horses to harvest the almond-sized beans that are made into chocolate treats for more fortunate children in Europe and the United States.'' When I read these articles, I resolved to do everything I could to end this tragic exploitation of children. Together with Congressman Eliot Engel of New York, we engaged the major chocolate companies in lengthy, intense negotiations. The result was what is now called the Harkin-Engel protocol, an agreement that aims to ensure that cocoa beans are grown and processed in a manner that complies with the International Labor Organization Convention 182 concerning the prohibition and immediate action for the elimination of the worst forms of child labor. The Harkin-Engel protocol, signed in September 2001, applies everywhere that cocoa is grown and processed. It laid out a series of date-specific actions, including the development of credible, mutually acceptable, voluntary industry-wide standards of public certification by July 1, 2005 in order to give a public accounting of labor practices in cocoa farming. Although I was disappointed that the July 2005 deadline was not fully met by the industry, we have continued to work together and the rollout of the certification system--including monitoring, data analysis reporting, and activities to reduce the worst forms of child labor--will proceed as aggressively as possible in Ivory Coast and Ghana with the goal of covering 50 percent of the two countries' cocoa producing areas by July of 2008. This is, indeed, a milestone on the path toward the ultimate goal of 100 percent coverage in cocoa-producing countries around the world. The clock is ticking. The corporations and national governments that were party to the Harkin-Engel protocol are moving forward. For example, the Government of Ghana has conducted a pilot project and the results were released. However, the results still need to be independently verified, and I am hopeful that the industry will work with the Ghanaian government to have these preliminary reports independently verified in accordance with the protocol. Additionally, the Ivorian government has only recently begun to conduct a pilot certification process. It is a good start, but that pilot needs to be scaled up in order to give more realistic results for the main harvest season. The Harkin-Engel protocol marks an important first--an entire industry, including companies from the United States, Europe, and the United Kingdom taking responsibility for addressing the worst forms of child labor and forced labor in its supply chain. Today the protocol stands as a framework for progress in West Africa, bringing together industry, West African governments, organized labor, nongovernmental organizations, farmers groups, and experts in a concerted effort to eliminate the worst forms of child labor and forced labor from the growing and processing of cocoa. To further assist in the effort to eradicate child labor, in my capacity as chairman of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, this past April I convened a hearing to facilitate collaborative efforts by advocacy groups in the child labor field. In light of the International Labor Organization's report last year, the discussion focused on how best to continue the cooperative international effort to eradicate child labor. The ILO global report, ``The End of Child Labor: Within Reach,'' states that for the first time child labor, especially in its worst forms, is in decline across the globe. Between the years 2000 and 2004, the number of child laborers worldwide fell by 11 percent, from 246 million to 218 million. Even better, the number of children and youth aged 5-17 trapped in hazardous work decreased by 26 percent, declining from 171 million in 2000 to 126 million in 2004. Among younger child laborers, the drop was even sharper at 33 percent. This is remarkable progress in just 4 years' time. And looking to the future, the report cautiously predicts that, if the current pace of decline is maintained, and if global efforts to stop child labor continue, we have a real shot at eliminating child labor in its worst forms within 10 years' time. Today, 218 million child laborers--many of whom are trapped in the worst forms of child labor, such as prostitution, armed conflicts, and slavery--are still suffering. While the U.S. Government and international organizations such as the World Bank and UNICEF have programs designed to reduce abusive and exploitative child labor, it will require all of these entities and others working together if we are to reach the goal of ending the worst forms of child labor by the year 2016. Likewise, in the broader fight against child labor, the ILO report verifies that we are on the right track to eliminate abusive and exploitative child labor. The great work of the ILO's International Program on the Elimination of Child Labor, IPEC, affirms the confidence I placed in this program early on. I secured the first Federal appropriation for the IPEC program back in 1996, and over the last decade, I have secured a total of more than $323 million for the program. Clearly, that money has made a real difference in the lives of children. It has given millions of children an opportunity to get an education and to break the cycle of poverty. Although there has been a tremendous amount of progress in ending child labor, now is not the time to become complacent. Economic development alone is not enough. We must also focus on human rights and educational opportunities for those in poverty. Social change must go hand in hand with economic development, which requires workers' and employers' organizations. Our keys to success will be mainstreaming child labor efforts with other human rights and development goals, as well as getting national governments, NGOs, and international organizations working cooperatively to end child poverty. We should not think about these children only on June 12 each year. We should think about this last vestige of slavery 365 days a year. I have remained steadfast in my commitment to eliminating abusive and exploitative child labor. It was in 1992 that I first introduced a bill to ban all products made by abusive and exploitative child labor from entering the United States. And I am committed to working with the representatives of the cocoa industry and the national governments to implement the Harkin-Engel Protocol by July 1, 2008 deadline. In my view, we can make significant progress to eliminate this scourge if we all do our part and redouble our efforts. This means that governments must not merely pass laws but enforce them, while also striving to provide quality free education. Businesses must take responsibility, as well, by not hiring children, and by paying adults livable wages so they can provide for their families. Multilateral institutions must also play a robust role. Together, we can eliminate the worst forms of child labor by 2016.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to Robert B. Mehnert, who is retiring after 48 years of dedicated service to the Government and people of the United States of America. Mr. Mehnert began his public service in 1958 with the U.S. Army, continuing in uniform until 1962. In 1963 he reentered Federal service, this time as a management intern with the then-Department of Health, Education and Welfare. He rose quickly through the ranks and, in 1971, Mr. Mehnert became Chief of the Office of Public Information at the National Library of Medicine of the National Institutes of Health. Since 1998 he has directed the Office of Communications and Public Liaison at the library. For more than a quarter century, Mr. Mehnert's keen editorial and literary talents have helped library's director, Donald A.B. Lindberg, M.D., and his predecessor, Martin M. Cummings, M.D., to communicate the most current and reliable medical and consumer health information to medical professionals, researchers, patients, families, and the public. During his tenure at the National Library of Medicine, Mr. Mehnert has been in the vanguard of a revolution in health information. The introduction of the Internet and the Web environment vastly increased the number and extent of NLM services and audiences. In 1997, after more than a century of serving the library and medical communities exclusively, the National Library of Medicine launched Medline freely on the Web and declared that it would seek to serve the general public as well. With Mr. Mehnert's help, other NLM services for the consumer public quickly followed. In 1998, MedlinePlus.gov, a source of authoritative full-text health information written for the consumer was unveiled. In 2000, ClinicalTrials.gov--an NLM Web site that provides consumers with information on medical research studies that are recruiting patients--was launched. Other NLM consumer-oriented databases were introduced in the last decade as bandwidth and the power of personal computers increased. They have included NIHSeniorHealth.gov, a talking Web site with topics and formats tailored to the needs of older persons; Genetics Home Reference, a Web site that makes genetics and its relationship to disease more understandable to the public; the Household Products database that provides easy-to-understand information on the potential health effects of ingredients contained in common household products; and many others. One of Mr. Mehnert's most tangible legacies has been his recent service on the editorial team responsible for producing a new quarterly NIH magazine, NIHMedlinePlus, which is sent to doctors' offices nationwide for their patients to read. The production of this consumer- oriented magazine fulfills Congress's call to publicize the fruits of NIH-sponsored research to patients, their families, and the public at large. Mr. Mehnert has been recognized by the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health for his exceptional leadership and achievements. Aside from numerous merit awards, his honors have also included being the recipient of both the NLM Director's Award and the NIH Director's Award on several occasions. As someone who has worked for many years to support medical research, I am especially grateful to people who have dedicated their lives to this crucial public health mission. Bob Mehnert has done that and is a great testament to what public service is all about. Bob and his wife, Helene, have three daughters, seven grandchildren, and 1.5 great grandchildren--that is, one is on the way. I thank Bob for his distinguished career in service to the American people, and I wish him many well-deserved years of happiness in retirement.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, a few minutes ago in the Mansfield Room, which is right off the Senate floor, we had a very moving ceremony, one that brought home to so many of us just what we ought to be about as representatives of the people. It was the enrolling ceremony for the bill, S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, that passed the House of Representatives a couple of hours ago. In the Senator Mansfield Room off the Senate floor were Senator Reid, our majority leader, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, along with Congresswoman DeGette from Colorado, who has been the prime mover of this legislation in the House, Congressman Mike Castle of Delaware, also a prime mover in the House. It was Representatives Castle and DeGette who worked together to get this bill through the House both last year and this year; also, Congresswoman Capps from California and Congressman Jim Langevin from Rhode Island. We had this enrolling ceremony to send the bill to the President. With us in the room at the time were people who in their own personage represent so many of the illnesses and diseases that stem cell research holds so much promise for curing, everything from juvenile diabetes to Parkinson's, Rett Syndrome, spinal cord injuries, multiple sclerosis, and so many others were there. You see these little kids and you see their families, and what they have left is hope. They have hope that scientists, working collaboratively, will unlock some of these mysteries, will find the interventions and the cures to so many of these illnesses and diseases. I saw there a little girl who had Rett Syndrome, with her mother. There was another young girl with juvenile diabetes, thinking about what her life is going to be like. We know stem cell research holds hope that scientists can unravel some of these mysteries. Those of us who have been involved in at least the legislative end of stem cell research, through all the hearings we have had going clear back to 1998 when the first embryonic stem cells were derived in Wisconsin, we know the great advances that have been made. We know how close we are to having some wonderful breakthroughs. Yet on August 9, 2001, President Bush, in his first year in office, spoke to the Nation--I remember it very well--and limited the number of stem cell lines that could be investigated by Federal researchers or through the auspices of the National Institutes of Health. They might not be Federal employees. They could be researchers at the University of Minnesota, the University of California, or the University of Iowa, but they would be getting grants from the National Institutes of Health for biomedical research. On August 9, 2001, the President basically said we are going to limit the number of stem cell lines. We thought at the time maybe 75 lines were enough. Then it turned out there were 20 some lines, then fewer than that. Then we found out later every single one of these stem cell lines was contaminated because they had been grown in a medium with mouse cells. So they are contaminated. None of them will ever be used for any kind of human intervention. Since that time, we have worked to overcome this Presidential fiat, if you will, one person, the President of the United States, being able to limit the expenditures of Federal money for stem cell research. Here I give my utmost praise and thanks to Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. He has been stalwart, first in his chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee that funds biomedical research. He was the first one to have congressional hearings on embryonic stem cell research. I believe we have had 20-some hearings since then. I was his ranking member and, of course, now I am Chair and he is my ranking member. But we have worked hand in glove all these years to overcome this Presidential fiat that limits, that put shackles on the scientists who want to unlock these mysteries, who want to work to help cure diseases such as juvenile diabetes, Lou Gehrig's disease, and spinal cord injuries. I can remember once when my good friend--now he is deceased-- Christopher Reeve, whom we all remember as Superman, the first Superman, had a severe spinal cord injury and he labored hard all the time for overcoming the President's order of August 9, 2001. He worked so hard to try to get a stem cell bill passed. One time, we had seen a film of a mouse--actually a rat, sorry, a rat--whose spinal cord had been severely damaged. There were pictures of this rat that couldn't walk--only with its front feet; its back feet were totally paralyzed--treated with stem cells, and the rat then walked. That was when Christopher Reeve uttered his famous line: ``Oh, to be a rat.'' Or as I said at the time, we are actually about 99 percent rat. I don't mean politicians, I mean humans, genetically, DNA- wise. And if that could be done there, then there is so much hope that can be investigated and taken on in trying to cure severe spinal cord injuries, for example. It was a very moving ceremony, looking at the faces of the mothers and the fathers, the children who were there, and thinking that this is what we ought to be doing. We ought to be giving them the hope that we are going to employ our best minds, our best science to heal the sick-- to heal the sick. I think and I hope that is one of the primary reasons for government, for our government--to help alleviate human suffering wherever we find it. So I am hopeful that the President will change his mind about his thoughts on vetoing this bill. As you all know, we passed this bill last year. I might add that this bill was passed with the House and Senate under Republican control, sent to the President, and he vetoed it. Well, we did not have the votes to override the veto. But we said we would be back under a new Congress, and we did come back. The Senate passed a bill a couple of months ago, in April. I might add, if you add up all of the votes--and there were some people missing, but if you added up all the votes with those who were for the bill and those against it, basically we had 66 votes in favor of this bill. That is one vote shy of enough to override. If I am not mistaken, I believe we had 18 Republican Senators. So this is not a partisan issue. It is not partisan. The same in the House. One of the leaders in the House is Mike Castle of Delaware, a Republican, and I mentioned Senator Arlen Specter, one of our great Republican leaders in the Senate on biomedical research. I guess you have to wonder why it would be that just one person, the President of the United States, has the power to deny so much hope to so many people. I am hopeful the President will reexamine his thoughts, listen to the kinder voices of his nature, and listen to those around him who understand this legislation has strong ethical guidelines. This bill has stricter ethical guidelines on stem cell research than is existing in law today. I might also add that the President has made it clear there was one moral line he would not cross. He said Federal tax dollars should not be used to destroy embryos. Well, we expressly crafted this bill, S. 5, to ensure that it does not lift the existing Federal ban on using Federal funding to destroy embryos. We have fully addressed the President's No. 1 concern. As I said, S. 5, the bill that was just enrolled and sent to the President, imposes stricter ethical requirements than exist today. We tried to meet the President halfway. Isn't that what this is about--the art of compromise? Maybe he is not all right all the time, maybe we are not, so we try to meet halfway. Last year, when the bill passed the Senate floor, there was a Specter-Santorum provision that was not put in the bill. The President said he was in favor of that. So we put it in the bill. That provision promotes alternative ways of deriving stem cells. The President last year said he endorsed that. Here is his chance to sign it and make it a law, along with a bill that has stricter ethical guidelines than what exist today. I see no reason, no ethical reason, no logical reason why the President would once again veto this bill. It is not the same bill he vetoed last year. It is a different bill. We put in the Specter- Santorum language. We put in the ethical guidelines. I want to make it clear this bill we will send to the President has requirements that are very strict. First, the only way a stem cell line can be eligible for federally funded research is, No. 1, if it were derived from an embryo that was otherwise going to be discarded. What do I mean by that? Well, there are about 400,000 embryos right now frozen in in vitro fertilization clinics. The moms and dads have had all the children they want, they no longer need any more of the embryos, and so those embryos are going to be discarded. It happens every day at fertility clinics all over America. All we are saying is, instead of discarding them, let's allow a couple to donate those, if they wish, to create stem cell lines that can cure diseases and save lives. Throw them away or use them to ease suffering. It is the second choice--use them to ease suffering--that I believe is the truly moral pathway and truly respectful of human life. Think about it. Think about a couple who has used in vitro fertilization to have a family. Over 50,000 children are born every year to couples who otherwise would be infertile. Let's say the couple has had the kids they want to have but there are leftover embryos. The couple's only choice now is to continue to pay the IVF clinic to keep them frozen in nitrogen for all their lives, and perhaps when they die they will be thrown away, or to throw them away. Those are the only two choices. Why not give a couple the choice of saying to the IVF clinic, you can take the leftover embryos we have and donate them to science for embryonic stem cell research. Some people might say, maybe then people will get into the business of paying couples--paying them to donate embryos, embryo farming and all of that, which we have heard about. We have covered that in the bill. We have strict ethical guidelines. No. 1, no money or any other consideration can be given to a couple for donating embryonic stem cells. No money or any other consideration. It must be strictly voluntary. And the donors have to give their informed written consent. The last ethical guideline is that these embryos that are donated can only be used for embryonic stem cell derivation and nothing else. As I said, these are stricter guidelines than exist today. So why wouldn't we allow couples who have had their family, rather than saying throw them away, why not allow them to be able to donate them for the kind of research that will ease human suffering and lead to cures? There is overwhelming support across the country for this legislation. Some 525 different groups have endorsed this bill--patient advocacy groups, religious groups, health organizations, scientific societies, and universities. They know it holds hope, hope for people with Lou Gehrig's disease, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, heart disease, people with diabetes, and people with cancer. This is not just us saying that. Don't just take our word for it. In March of this year, in front of our committee, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, the Director of the National Institutes of Health--keep in mind he is the head person of all of the Federal biomedical research, Dr. Zerhouni, head of the NIH--appeared before our committee. I asked him whether scientists would have a better chance of finding new cures and treatments if the administration's current restrictions on embryonic stem cell research were lifted. Dr. Zerhouni said, unequivocally, yes. Keep in mind, Dr. Zerhouni is the Federal Government's top scientist in the area of medical research. He was appointed by President Bush to his present position. So I think it took great courage on Dr. Zerhouni's part to say in public that his boss had it wrong on stem cell research. But I know Dr. Zerhouni. He is a preeminent scientist; the greatest doctor, and I know that he knows--he has so stated it-- that we must move ahead on embryonic stem cell research. Here is what he said, and let me quote him: It is clear today that American science would be better served and the Nation would be better served if we let our scientists have access to more stem cell lines. It is in the best interest of our scientists, our science, and our country that we find ways and the Nation finds a way to allow the science to go full speed across adult and embryonic stem cells equally. Well, Madam President, we must move forward. We must move forward. I just hope the President will sign this bill. But I can assure you, on behalf of the hundreds of millions of Americans who suffer from different kinds of diseases that have the potential--the potential--to be cured through embryonic stem cell research, if the President vetoes it, we will be back, and we will back again and again and again. This issue is not going to go away. We are going to keep hope alive for people with spinal cord injuries, with Parkinson's disease, and with so many others. We don't require astronomers to examine the skies at night with Galileo's telescope. We don't tell our geologists to study the Earth with a tape measure. Are we really serious about unlocking the mysteries of stem cells and all of the things that we have seen happen with stem cells? We have already seen stem cells that have differentiated into motor neuron cells, nerve cells, and heart muscle cells. We have already seen this take place. Now it is just a matter of more science, getting more of our smartest scientists involved in this to take the next step and the next step and the next step so that someone suffering from Parkinson's disease will have a cure. I believe it is possible. From all the scientists I have talked to, I believe it is possible, and it could be possible in our lifetimes. A Nobel prize winner, the discoverer of the double helix of our DNA, Dr. Jim Watson, said to me not too long ago: With all that we have done in unraveling the mystery of the human gene--we have mapped and sequenced the entire human genome--with that and with these new breakthroughs in finding that embryonic stem cells can differentiate, we can take them and differentiate them into different tissues--if our scientists are allowed to really go at this full speed, medicine 50 years from now, as it is practiced, will make it look like what we are doing today as being in the dark ages. That is the hope and the promise of embryonic stem cell research. It should not be that one person, the President of the United States, can stop this from going forward. With this enrolling ceremony we had today and the focus of the Nation on this, all I can ask is: President Bush, listen to the better angels of your nature. Think about all those who are suffering in our society who need this hope and the scientists who can work together, collaboratively, to find the interventions and the cures for so many diseases--think about this before you put pen to paper and veto this bill. So much rides on this. But as I said, if the President does veto it, we will be back, again and again. This is not going to stop. We are going to lift this ban, and we are going to move ahead with embryonic stem cell research. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I would like to express my deep appreciation to Peggy Whitworth, executive director of Iowa's only national trust property, Brucemore. Brucemore, located in Cedar Rapids, IA, is celebrating its 25th anniversary, and Peggy has been Brucemore's only executive director during that quarter century. During this time, her leadership, creativity, and ``can-do'' attitude have made Brucemore a model nonprofit organization and an eastern Iowa landmark. This past December, Peggy was awarded the National Trust President's Award for her years of dedicated service to Brucemore, as well as for her advocacy of preservation. I would like to add my voice to those honoring Peggy and her work. She is respected not just in Iowa but across the country as a champion for preservation and the promotion of cultural attractions. Her labors on behalf of historical preservation have helped inspire people in other communities to preserve and honor the important architectural, cultural and historic contributions from our past. Twenty five years ago, when Brucemore was bequeathed to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the idea was to use the mansion for community meetings and activities. That limited perspective did not last long. Under Peggy's leadership, Brucemore has come to offer a full schedule of events, including Bluesmore, Classics at Brucemore, Cabaret in the Courtyard, as well as tours of the mansion which draw nearly 30,000 people annually. Peggy has also been active in promoting culture and tourism attractions as an economic development tool. In addition to her work at Brucemore, Peggy has served five terms on the Iowa State Historical Society board, including chairing the board. She serves on the Terrace Hill Foundation. And she was recently appointed to the Board of Pharmacy Examiners by Iowa Governor Chet Culver. Peggy Whitworth is planning to retire later this year. Her leadership and vision will be greatly missed. And we are deeply grateful for her many contributions to the cultural richness of Iowa.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Katherine Chen and Alec Bonander of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's session.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I join with my senior colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, in introducing a bill to name the Marshalltown Post Office in honor of MAJ Scott Nisely, who was killed in action in Iraq on September 30, 2006. Major Nisely enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps in 1981 and served in Operation Desert Storm. In 1994, he moved to Marshalltown, IA, with his family and worked at the Iowa Veterans Home as well as at the Marshalltown and Des Moines Post Offices. Because of his love for his country and the military, Major Nisely took a demotion to join the Iowa National Guard and was sent to Iraq in 2005. Major Nisely was a dedicated husband and father, beloved for his sense of humor and positive attitude. Having served in Operation Desert Storm, he was already a respected Marine veteran and a hero to his family and friends. But with our Armed Forces engaged in Iraq, he once again felt compelled to fight for his country. Major Nisely served in two wars, set a sterling example of selfless service to country, and paid the ultimate price while fighting in Iraq. I am proud to join my colleague in naming the post office in Marshalltown the Major Scott Nisely Post Office, in honor of this fallen hero.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I join with my senior colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, in introducing a bill to name the Marshalltown Post Office in honor of MAJ Scott Nisely, who was killed in action in Iraq on September 30, 2006. Major Nisely enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps in 1981 and served in Operation Desert Storm. In 1994, he moved to Marshalltown, IA, with his family and worked at the Iowa Veterans Home as well as at the Marshalltown and Des Moines Post Offices. Because of his love for his country and the military, Major Nisely took a demotion to join the Iowa National Guard and was sent to Iraq in 2005. Major Nisely was a dedicated husband and father, beloved for his sense of humor and positive attitude. Having served in Operation Desert Storm, he was already a respected Marine veteran and a hero to his family and friends. But with our Armed Forces engaged in Iraq, he once again felt compelled to fight for his country. Major Nisely served in two wars, set a sterling example of selfless service to country, and paid the ultimate price while fighting in Iraq. I am proud to join my colleague in naming the post office in Marshalltown the Major Scott Nisely Post Office, in honor of this fallen hero.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, throughout my time in the United States Congress, I have worked with my colleagues to promote the economic security of low-income and working American families. In many respects, we have made significant progress, but in others, much work remains to be done. The last several years have been difficult ones for low-income Americans. Since 2000, the number of Americans living in poverty has increased by 5 million. At the same time, wages have stagnated for Americans in the bottom tenth of earners. It's no surprise that more and more Americans have turned to vital Federal food assistance such as the Food Stamp Program, which this year will serve 26 million Americans. The Food Stamp Program is our Nation's first line of defense against hunger, providing modest but vital benefits to millions of American families, and also serving our country during times of extraordinary need. In fact, the Food Stamp Program played a crucial role in helping millions of Americans who were devastated by the Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2005. Unfortunately, Congress has not taken action to modernize the program so that it addresses the current challenges that low-income Americans must face. It is time for Congress to make such needed program improvements. With the food stamp reauthorization pending as part of the upcoming farm bill, we have an opportunity and an obligation to invest in the Food Stamp Program and, in so doing, in the food security and health of our country's families. Today I am joined by my good friend and colleague, Senator Lugar from Indiana, in introducing the Food Stamp Fairness and Benefit Restoration Act of 2007. I thank the Senator from Indiana for his long-time efforts to fight hunger in America, and for joining me today to introduce this legislation. The bill that we are introducing today contains several particular improvements. First and foremost, the legislation would halt food stamp benefit erosion that is occurring as a result of draconian cuts enacted in the mid-90s. As a result of these cuts, food stamp benefits are eroding with every passing year and, as they do, the economic situations of families receiving food stamps grows ever more precarious. Second, the bill would enable families to deduct fully the costs of child care for purposes of eligibility and benefit determination. Currently, program rules allow families to deduct just $175 per month of the cost of child care. Not only has this deduction not been adjusted to account for increases in the cost of child care, but it comes nowhere near covering the cost of child care, which nationwide averages almost $650 per month. Third, the legislation would update archaic program rules regarding the resources that a family may have and still receive food stamps. In 1977, Congress established a program rule that said that a family may have $1,750 in available liquid assets and still receive food stamps. Had this asset limit been adjusted for inflation, today a family would be able to have nearly $6,000 in savings and still receive food stamps. Instead, we allow just $2,000. This makes no sense. Not only does it actively discourage families from saving for their future, it all but requires families that experience an economic shock such as a job loss or a medical emergency to spend down their savings to hit absolute rock bottom just to receive meager food benefits. It is time to adjust this asset limit and stop discouraging families from doing what we tell every other American that they must do--save. To that end, the bill also exempts tax-preferred retirement and educational savings accounts. Fourth, this bill restores food stamp eligibility for legal immigrant households. This too is nothing but a basic restoration of a principle of fairness that existed prior to the mid-1990s. Unfortunately, Congress chose, unwisely in my opinion, to take away benefits from those legal immigrants who played by the rules and legally entered our country. Keep in mind these are families who work and are part of our society. I disagreed with the decision then and I disagree with it today. It is time to rectify this grave injustice and abide by the basic principle that those who enter the country legally and play by the same rules as the rest of us, should also be eligible for the same benefits for which they pay taxes. Our bill would do that. Fifth, the legislation would set more humane eligibility standards for unemployed, childless adults. These individuals are among the poorest in our country and often have significant mental health and substance abuse problems. They are, in short, among the people who need our help the most. But ironically, they are among those who we deny the most basic of food assistance. Currently, such adults can receive food stamps for only 3 months out of every 3 years. This legislation proposes a modestly more sympathetic standard of 6 months out of every 2-year period. Finally, my bill would increase funding for commodity purchases for food banks and community food providers. U.S. Government donations to food banks have dropped dramatically in recent years, even as the number of Americans seeking help from community food providers has consistently increased. I know that the budget is tight and that Congress must be prudent in decisions about how we allocate funding. But I also know that there is no function of the federal government as basic and as critical as ensuring that low-income Americans, families with children, elderly living on fixed incomes, and persons with disabilities, have enough food for their next meal. It is past time for Congress to act in this regard, and I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me and the Senator from Indiana to enact the Food Stamp Fairness and Benefit Restoration Act of 2007.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, throughout my time in the United States Congress, I have worked with my colleagues to promote the economic security of low-income and working American families. In many respects, we have made significant progress, but in others, much work remains to be done. The last several years have been difficult ones for low-income Americans. Since 2000, the number of Americans living in poverty has increased by 5 million. At the same time, wages have stagnated for Americans in the bottom tenth of earners. It's no surprise that more and more Americans have turned to vital Federal food assistance such as the Food Stamp Program, which this year will serve 26 million Americans. The Food Stamp Program is our Nation's first line of defense against hunger, providing modest but vital benefits to millions of American families, and also serving our country during times of extraordinary need. In fact, the Food Stamp Program played a crucial role in helping millions of Americans who were devastated by the Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2005. Unfortunately, Congress has not taken action to modernize the program so that it addresses the current challenges that low-income Americans must face. It is time for Congress to make such needed program improvements. With the food stamp reauthorization pending as part of the upcoming farm bill, we have an opportunity and an obligation to invest in the Food Stamp Program and, in so doing, in the food security and health of our country's families. Today I am joined by my good friend and colleague, Senator Lugar from Indiana, in introducing the Food Stamp Fairness and Benefit Restoration Act of 2007. I thank the Senator from Indiana for his long-time efforts to fight hunger in America, and for joining me today to introduce this legislation. The bill that we are introducing today contains several particular improvements. First and foremost, the legislation would halt food stamp benefit erosion that is occurring as a result of draconian cuts enacted in the mid-90s. As a result of these cuts, food stamp benefits are eroding with every passing year and, as they do, the economic situations of families receiving food stamps grows ever more precarious. Second, the bill would enable families to deduct fully the costs of child care for purposes of eligibility and benefit determination. Currently, program rules allow families to deduct just $175 per month of the cost of child care. Not only has this deduction not been adjusted to account for increases in the cost of child care, but it comes nowhere near covering the cost of child care, which nationwide averages almost $650 per month. Third, the legislation would update archaic program rules regarding the resources that a family may have and still receive food stamps. In 1977, Congress established a program rule that said that a family may have $1,750 in available liquid assets and still receive food stamps. Had this asset limit been adjusted for inflation, today a family would be able to have nearly $6,000 in savings and still receive food stamps. Instead, we allow just $2,000. This makes no sense. Not only does it actively discourage families from saving for their future, it all but requires families that experience an economic shock such as a job loss or a medical emergency to spend down their savings to hit absolute rock bottom just to receive meager food benefits. It is time to adjust this asset limit and stop discouraging families from doing what we tell every other American that they must do--save. To that end, the bill also exempts tax-preferred retirement and educational savings accounts. Fourth, this bill restores food stamp eligibility for legal immigrant households. This too is nothing but a basic restoration of a principle of fairness that existed prior to the mid-1990s. Unfortunately, Congress chose, unwisely in my opinion, to take away benefits from those legal immigrants who played by the rules and legally entered our country. Keep in mind these are families who work and are part of our society. I disagreed with the decision then and I disagree with it today. It is time to rectify this grave injustice and abide by the basic principle that those who enter the country legally and play by the same rules as the rest of us, should also be eligible for the same benefits for which they pay taxes. Our bill would do that. Fifth, the legislation would set more humane eligibility standards for unemployed, childless adults. These individuals are among the poorest in our country and often have significant mental health and substance abuse problems. They are, in short, among the people who need our help the most. But ironically, they are among those who we deny the most basic of food assistance. Currently, such adults can receive food stamps for only 3 months out of every 3 years. This legislation proposes a modestly more sympathetic standard of 6 months out of every 2-year period. Finally, my bill would increase funding for commodity purchases for food banks and community food providers. U.S. Government donations to food banks have dropped dramatically in recent years, even as the number of Americans seeking help from community food providers has consistently increased. I know that the budget is tight and that Congress must be prudent in decisions about how we allocate funding. But I also know that there is no function of the federal government as basic and as critical as ensuring that low-income Americans, families with children, elderly living on fixed incomes, and persons with disabilities, have enough food for their next meal. It is past time for Congress to act in this regard, and I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me and the Senator from Indiana to enact the Food Stamp Fairness and Benefit Restoration Act of 2007.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, since it was created the U.S. Postal Service has provided trusted, reliable delivery to tens of millions of households throughout the country. Today, the USPS stands as the second largest employer in the country with over 700,000 employees and is the most efficient postal service in the world. Last year, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act was passed and signed into law, ensuring the sustainability of the USPS for years to come. However, recent decisions by the Postal Service have put the success and reliability of mail delivery in jeopardy. Postal delivery managers are now being encouraged to contract out delivery services for all new deliveries, of which there are approximately 1.8 million per year. Outsourcing the mailman bypasses the process that ensures that only qualified people handle America's mail, leaving open the possibility that convicted felons, identity thieves, or other undesirable workers could have access to the mail stream. Furthermore, it limits the ability of the Postal Service to prevent, investigate, and prosecute mail theft, mail fraud, and other illegal uses of the mail. The USPS employs dedicated postal employees who earn solid middle- class wages and have health benefits and pension plans. The quality of service and reliability that the USPS has been known for is threatened if our mail carriers are replaced by low-paid, short-term workers. This is why I am introducing the Mail Delivery Protection Act of 2007. This bill would prevent the USPS from contracting out the delivery of mail to postal patrons to private individuals and firms. Each day millions of sensitive materials, including financial statements, credit cards, Social Security checks, passports, and ballots, pass through the mail stream. We cannot afford to allow the safe delivery of these personal, private documents to be granted to the lowest bidder. In 2006, 379 Members of the House of Representatives voted against a pilot program testing the feasibility of contracted delivery. However, postal management has increasingly chosen to contract out the delivery of mail, therefore outsourcing their core service function. A fancy restaurant would not contract out its chefs to a cheap fast-food chain to save money. Why should the Post Office outsource its delivery? We must remember that this is the U.S. Postal Service. This bill will ensure that the safety and reliability we have all come to know from our local mail carriers will continue. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am offering legislation to close the U.S. military presence at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. There is remarkable agreement on the need to find a way to close this prison. Our closest allies have all urged that Guantanamo be closed, as have many leaders from across the political spectrum in the United States. Last June, after three detainees committed suicide in a single day, President Bush acknowledged that the prison has damaged America's reputation abroad. The President said: No question, Guantanamo sends a signal to some of our friends--provides an excuse, for example, to say that the United States is not upholding the values that they're trying to encourage other countries to adhere to. The President said: I'd like to close Guantanamo. More recently, Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Rice have urged that the prison be shut down. On March 23, the Washington Post, citing ``senior administration officials,'' reported Secretary Gates had ``repeatedly argued that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had become so tainted abroad that legal proceedings at Guantanamo would be viewed as illegitimate.'' According to the Post, Secretary Gates ``told President Bush and others that it should be shut down as quickly as possible.'' Make no mistake, current detainees at Guantanamo include a number of extremely dangerous terrorists with the determination and the ability-- if they are given the opportunity--to inflict grave harm on the United States and its citizens. Among the detainees are 14 senior leaders of al-Qaida, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who has confessed to being one of the masterminds of the September 11 attacks, plus others. We must, and we can, hold these enemy combatants in maximum security confinement elsewhere. But the critics are right. The 5-year-old prison at Guantanamo is a stain on the honor of this country. By holding people at Guantanamo without charge, without judicial review, without appropriate legal counsel, and--in the past--subjecting many of them to torture, we have forfeited the moral high ground and we stand as hypocrites in the eyes of the world. Perhaps most seriously, from a pragmatic standpoint, maintaining the prison at Guantanamo is simply counterproductive. It has become a propaganda bonanza and recruitment tool for terrorists. It alienates our friends and allies. It detracts from our ability to regain the moral high ground, and rally the world against the terrorists who threaten us. The administration has repeatedly described detainees at Guantanamo as ``the worst of the worst'' or, as former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld once described them, the ``most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth.'' Unquestionably, some of the detainees fit these descriptions. However, an exhaustive study of Guantanamo detainees conducted by the nonpartisan, highly respected National Journal last year came to the following conclusions: A large percentage, perhaps the majority, of the detainees were not captured on any battlefield, let alone on ``the battlefield in Afghanistan,'' as the President once asserted. Fewer than 20 percent of the detainees have ever been al-Qaida members. Many scores, and perhaps hundreds, of the detainees were not even Taliban foot soldiers, let alone al-Qaida members. The majority were not captured by U.S. forces but, rather, handed over by reward-seeking Pakistanis, Afghan warlords, and by villagers of highly dubious reliability. For example, one of the detainees is a man who was conscripted by the Taliban to work as an assistant cook. The U.S. Government's ``evidence'' against this detainee consists in its entirety of the following: One, the detainee admits he was a cook's assistant for Taliban forces in Narim, Afghanistan, under the command of Haji Mullah Baki. Two, the detainee fled from Narim to Kabul during the Northern Alliance attack and surrendered to the Northern Alliance. This person is still sitting in Guantanamo. The situation at Guantanamo, I must add, reminds me of an earlier episode in this Senator's life. In July of 1970, I was a staff assistant to a House committee in the House of Representatives. I was working with a congressional delegation on a factfinding trip to Vietnam. I brought back photographs of the so-called tiger cages at Con Son Island, off the coast of Vietnam, where Viet Cong and some North Vietnamese prisoners, as well as civilian opponents of the war, were all being held together, held incommunicado, tortured and killed, with the full knowledge, support, and sanction of the United States Government. We had heard reports about the possible existence of these tiger cages. But our State Department vehemently denied their existence. They dismissed all of these claims as communist propaganda. Well, I looked into this and believed the reports were credible. I was determined to investigate further to see if they did exist. Thanks to the courage of Congressman William Anderson of Tennessee, Congressman Augustus Hawkins of California, Don Luce, an American working for a nongovernmental organization, and a brave, young Vietnamese man who risked his life and his brother's life, who was still held on Con Son in the tiger cages, who drew us the maps and showed us how to find the tiger cages at these prisons--Nguyen Caoli was the young man's name. He risked it all by trusting us. Thanks to his maps and telling us how to find them, we were able to expose the tiger cages on Con Son Island in July of 1970. Supporters of the war claimed the tiger cages were not all that bad. But then Life Magazine and other magazines around the world published the pictures I had surreptitiously taken on Con Son, and the world saw the horrific conditions, as I said, with Vietnamese guerrillas, as well as civilian opponents of the war, all crowded together in these cages, in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, and in violation of the most fundamental principles of human rights. At the time, the United States Government had been insisting the North Vietnamese abide by the Geneva Conventions in their treatment of United States prisoners in North Vietnam. Yet, here we were condoning, funding, and even supervising the torture of Vietnamese prisoners and civilians, whose only crime was protesting the war, all in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions. There are disturbing parallels between what transpired on Con Son Island nearly four decades ago and what happened at Guantanamo in recent years. In both cases, prisons were deliberately set up on remote islands, clearly with the intention of limiting scrutiny and restricting access. In both cases, detainees were not classified as prisoners of war, expressly to deny them the protections of the Geneva Conventions. In both cases, detainees were deprived of any right of due process, judicial review, or a fair trial. They were simply held indefinitely in isolation, in limbo. In both cases, when the mistreatment of detainees was exposed, the United States stood accused of hypocrisy, of betraying its most sacred values, and of violating international law. So you can see why I have watched what has transpired at Guantanamo, and I have thought back to that episode in my life when all of this came out about the tiger cages and the inhumane treatment of these several hundred prisoners who were there at the time. There was a happy ending to that event. Because of the international outcry, the tiger cages were closed down, the prisoners were released, and people went back to their homes. Many of them who were in the tiger cages I met later on in life. One became the mayor of Saigon, several became successful businesspeople, and others went on with their lives. But watching what happened at Guantanamo and seeing that many of these people were swept up in a war which some of them--many of them--well, the National Journal says a majority of them were not even engaged. So it is time to close it down. We need to reverse the damage Guantanamo has done to America's reputation and to our ability to wage an effective fight against the terrorists who attacked us on September 11, and the essential first step must be to close the prison at Guantanamo as expeditiously as possible. The bill I am introducing today offers a practical approach to accomplishing this within 120 days of enactment of the law. As I said, there are known hardcore terrorists at Guantanamo, such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who must continue to be held in maximum- security conditions. Under my bill, these prisoners will be transferred to the U.S. detention base at Fort Leavenworth, KS. This is a state-of- the-art maximum-security facility just opened in 2002. It has adequate capacity to receive these prisoners from Guantanamo. Under my bill, the remaining prisoners, some 365 in number, would have their legal status resolved. In each case, the administration will determine whether the prisoner planned or committed hostile acts against the United States. Those who did plan or commit hostile acts would be charged and transferred to Fort Leavenworth. Those who did not would be released to the custody of their home country or, where necessary, to a country where they would not face torture. There is a pending bill, S. 1249, to close the prison at Guantanamo. However, that bill gives the administration too much leeway to maintain the status quo in terms of the detainees' legal status. It allows an enemy combatant to be detained indefinitely without charge--that is what is getting us into trouble in the first place--and it does not require that the administration abide by the Convention Against Torture, nor does it give detainees a forum in which to lodge credible claims of torture or abuse. The bill I am introducing does all of that. The United States has lost its way, both in Iraq and at Guantanamo. We need to wage a smarter, more focused, and more effective fight against the terrorists who threaten us, and we must do so in ways that do not give credence to their anti-American propaganda and do not rally more recruits to their cause. To that end, we must close the prison at Guantanamo as soon as possible. The legislation I am offering today will accomplish this. This legislation has the enthusiastic endorsement of Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, Amnesty International, and the American Civil Liberties Union. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. President, I ask unamimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.