Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate Judiciary Committee is issuing subpoenas to political operatives at the White House for documents and testimony related to the committee's ongoing investigation into the mass firings of U.S. attorneys and the politicization of hiring and firing within the Department of Justice. This is not a step I take lightly. For over 4 months I have exhausted every avenue seeking the voluntary cooperation of Karl Rove and J. Scott Jennings but to no avail. They and the White House have stonewalled every request. Indeed, the White House is choosing to withhold documents and is instructing witnesses who are former officials--not current officials but former officials--to refuse to answer questions and provide relevant information and documents. We have now reached a point where accumulated evidence shows that political considerations factored into the unprecedented firing of at least nine U.S. attorneys last year. Testimony and documents show that the list was compiled based on input from the highest political ranks in the White House, including Mr. Rove and Mr. Jennings. And today I will subpoena Mr. Rove and Mr. Jennings. The evidence shows that senior officials were apparently focused on the political impact of Federal prosecutions and whether Federal prosecutors were doing enough to bring partisan voter fraud and corruption cases. It is obvious that the reasons given for these firings were contrived as part of a coverup and that the stonewalling by the White House is part and parcel of that same effort. Just this week, during his sworn testimony, Mr. Gonzales contrasted these firings with the replacement of other U.S. attorneys for ``legitimate cause.'' The White House has asserted blanket claims of executive privilege, despite testimony under oath and on the record that the President was not involved. The White House refuses to provide a factual basis for its blanket claims. The White House has instructed former White House officials not to testify about what they know and instructed Harriet Miers to refuse even to appear as required by a House Judiciary Committee subpoena. The White House has withheld relevant documents and instructed other witnesses not to produce relevant documents to the Congress but only to the White House. Last week, the White House did much to substantiate the evidence that it is intent on reducing U.S. attorneys and Federal law enforcement to merely another partisan political aspect of its efforts when it dispatched an anonymous senior official to take the position that the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia would not be permitted to follow the statutory mechanism to test White House assertions of executive privilege by prosecuting contempt of Congress. In essence, this White House asserts its claim of privilege is the final word, that Congress may not review it, that no court can review it and that this White House, unlike any White House in history, is above the law. Two days ago, during an oversight hearing with Mr. Gonzales, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, rightly asked: Mr. Attorney General, do you think constitutional government in the United States can survive if the President has unilateral authority to reject congressional inquiries on grounds of executive privilege and the President then acts to bar the Congress from getting a judicial determination as to whether that executive privilege is properly invoked? There can be no more conclusive demonstration of this administration's partisan intervention in Federal law enforcement than if this administration were to instruct the Justice Department not to pursue congressional contempt citations and intervene to prevent a U.S. attorney from fulfilling his sworn constitutional duty. In other words, telling the U.S. attorney: Violate your oath of office; don't carry out your sworn constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws and proceed pursuant to section 194 of title 2 of the United States Code. The President recently abused the pardon power to forestall Scooter Libby from ever serving a single day of his 30-month sentence for conviction before a jury on multiple counts of perjury, lying to a grand jury, and obstruction of justice. Stonewalling this congressional investigation is further demonstration that this administration refuses to abide by the rule of law. This stonewalling is a dramatic break from the practices of every administration since World War II in responding to congressional oversight. In that time, Presidential advisers have testified before congressional committees 74 times voluntarily or compelled by subpoenas. During the Clinton administration, White House and administration advisers were routinely subpoenaed for documents or to appear before Congress. For example, in 1996 alone, the House Government Reform Committee issued at least 27 subpoenas to White House advisers. The veil of secrecy this administration has pulled over the White House is unprecedented and damaging to the tradition of open government by and for the people that has been a hallmark of the Republic. The investigation into the firing for partisan purposes of U.S. attorneys, who had been appointed by this President, along with an ever-growing series of controversies and scandals have revealed an administration driven by a vision of an all-powerful Executive over our constitutional system of checks and balances, one that values loyalty over judgment, secrecy over openness, and ideology over competence. What the White House stonewalling is preventing is conclusive evidence of who made the decisions to fire these Federal prosecutors. We know from the testimony that it was not the President. Everyone who has testified has said that he was not involved. None of the senior officials at the Department of Justice could testify how people were added to the list or the real reasons that people were included among the Federal prosecutors to be replaced. Indeed, the evidence we have been able to collect points to Karl Rove and the political operatives at the White House. A former political director at the White House made a revealing admission in her recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee when she refused to answer questions citing the oath she took to the President. In this constitutional democracy, the oath taken by public officials is to the Constitution, not any particular President of any particular party. The Constitution itself provides the oath of office of the President. Every President since George Washington has shown to ``preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' The oath for other Federal official is prescribed by Congress through statute and provides that every Federal officer's duty is not to support and defend any particular President or administration but ``to support and defend the Constitution of the United States'' and ``to bear true faith and allegiance'' to our founding principles and law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to recognize the career of a real-life hero who stands tall as one of the bravest and most dedicated public servants we have in Vermont if not anywhere-- Police Chief David Demag of the town of Essex Police Department. After 36 years in law enforcement, Dave will hang up his uniform early next month and enter a well-earned retirement. Dave comes from a family dedicated to police service--he is the fourth generation in his family to serve as a police officer. In fact, his great-grandfather and namesake, Chief David Demag, was the first chief of police of the Village of Essex in the early 1900s. It seems to me that it is only fitting that Dave will finish his law enforcement career in Essex, where his roots grow deep. I am proud to be able to call Dave not only an accomplished Vermonter but also a good friend. We have known each other for years, having both started our careers in law enforcement in the city of Burlington. Dave began in 1971 as a patrol officer for the Burlington Police Department, and was promoted through the ranks as corporal, detective, sergeant, lieutenant and, finally, commander. In 1996, he was appointed chief of police in St. Albans, a post he held until May 2001, when he was named to Chief of Police in Essex. When he began his law enforcement career in the early 1970s, Dave worked undercover on drug cases. One of the cases we worked together on--he as an undercover agent and me as the State's attorney for Chittenden County--set up a successful sting to catch Paul Lawrence, a corrupt cop who framed dozens of narcotics suspects. The Lawrence case remains the first item Dave cites as the most memorable moments of his professional life. Known for his ability to earn and command respect from his employees and the public he serves, Chief Demag has led the Essex Police Department with a steady hand and a calm presence. He is credited with revitalizing the Essex Police Department and changing the way it trains and promotes officers. As chief, he has emphasized continuing education for members of the force and required promotions to be based on ability rather than length of service. Dave's leadership was especially apparent last August when a gunman went on a shooting spree at three sites across Essex, including an elementary school, leaving two dead and three wounded, including the gunman himself. Taking swift and deliberate action, Dave and his officers ushered dozens of teachers and several children away from the chaos at Essex Elementary School and to safety as tactical-response officers wearing body armor and carrying automatic weapons moved in and surrounded the building. As a U.S. Senator, I have been privileged to work with Chief Demag and have his vocal support on an array of initiatives--from bulletproof vests to first responder funding--that have helped make the lives and work of Vermont's and our Nation's police officers a bit easier. But what stands out most in my mind is his unwavering support for the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act, which became law in 2003 and expanded the Public Safety Officer Benefits, PSOB, Program by allowing survivors of public safety officers who suffer fatal heart attacks or strokes while acting in the line of duty to qualify for the Federal survivor benefits. Dave understood how important it was for that bill to become law because his father, special Deputy Sheriff Bernard Demag of the Chittenden County Sheriff's Office, suffered a fatal heart attack within 2 hours of his chase and apprehension of an escaped juvenile whom he had been transporting. The Demag family spent nearly two decades fighting in court for workers' compensation death benefits to no avail. What Dave and his family went through left no doubt in my mind that we should be treating the surviving families of officers who die in the line of duty with more decency and respect. Although Dave knew that his family would not receive survivor benefits under the PSOB law, he did not want other survivors of public safety officers to endure what his family suffered. It was a great day when I told Dave that the Hometown Heroes Act had finally been signed into law. In 2001, Chief Demag was appointed on my recommendation to serve on the 11-member U.S. Medal of Valor Review Board, which selects and recommends to the President public safety officers to receive the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor. The Medal of Valor is the highest national award for valor by a public safety officer and is designed to recognize the extraordinary heroism of our police, firefighters and correctional officers. As a board member, Dave has worked faithfully to award the medal to his public safety officers who demonstrate extraordinary valor above and beyond the call of duty. I wish Dave and his wife Donna nothing but the best as they head into the next phase of their life together. I will say, however, that whoever Essex appoints as its next police chief will have the biggest of shoes to fill, as Dave Demag is the best kind of leader a community can hope for and he will be missed. Thank you, Dave, and congratulations for your service and commitment to the people of Essex and all Vermonters. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last week, I spoke in this Chamber about the current debate underway in Guatemala concerning the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala, CICIG. In my brief remarks I recalled the 30 years of civil war that caused widespread atrocities against civilians, particularly Guatemala's Mayan population. A substantial majority of those killings and disappearances were perpetrated by Guatemalan security forces. Since the signing of the Peace Accords in 1996, most Guatemalans have tried to put the past behind them and rebuild their country. The United States and other donors have supported that effort. But key aspects of the Peace Accords remain unfulfilled, and there has been no justice for the families of the war's many victims. Meanwhile, gang violence, drug trafficking, brutal killings of women, and attacks against human rights defenders and others who speak out against corruption and impunity have increased exponentially and threaten the very foundations of Guatemala's fragile democracy. In recent years, the Guatemalan Government has worked with officials of the United Nations to draft the CICIG agreement, the latest version of which has been upheld by Guatemala's constitutional court. The CICIG is necessary to expose the truth about clandestine groups and to bring accountability for the violence. Far from weakening national sovereignty, CICIG will support Guatemala by helping to strengthen the capacity of the country's dysfunctional judicial system. On July 18, a majority of members of the International Relations Committee of the Guatemalan Congress, for reasons that only they can explain, voted against the CICIG agreement. Since then, several have changed their votes and I understand that on August 1 the full Congress will approve or reject the CICIG agreement or refer it to another committee. The question of whether to approve CICIG is, of course, a decision solely for Guatemala's Congress to make. But the importance of this historic decision cannot be overstated for U.S.-Guatemalan relations and for Guatemala's future. Guatemala, like many impoverished countries emerging from years of civil conflict, faces immense social, economic and political challenges. Without the support of countries like the United States in building its economy, promoting foreign investment and trade, and strengthening the institutions of democracy, Guatemala will lag behind its neighbors. Today, that support hangs in the balance. The Bush administration has voiced strong support for CICIG. The U.S. Congress has linked a resumption of U.S. assistance for the Guatemalan Armed Forces, in part, on approval of CICIG. In addition, I would be reluctant to support assistance for Guatemala to take part in any regional security initiative with the United States, unless CICIG is approved and supported. There is little point in trying to work with a government that fails to demonstrate a strong commitment to ending impunity and to combating gang violence and corruption, which have infiltrated the very institutions that would participate in such a strategy. CICIG is nothing less than a choice between the past and the future. Rejecting this historic initiative an outcome most Americans would find inexplicable would signal that the Guatemalan Congress is more interested in protecting the forces of evil, and in covering up the truth, than in ending the lawlessness that is taking Guatemala backwards.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, at a time when we are focused on the chaos in Iraq and the flood of Iraqis who have fled their homes and are living either as displaced persons in Iraq or as refugees in Jordan, Syria and elsewhere, I want to call attention to a humanitarian crisis in our own hemisphere. In Colombia, a country of roughly 44 million people, over 3 million have been internally displaced as a result of political and drug-related violence and the aerial spraying of chemical herbicides to eradicate coca. They are the second largest displaced population in the world after Darfur, Sudan. An average of 18,000 Colombians are uprooted every month, with more than 1 million forced to flee in the past 5 years alone, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. To put that in perspective, if the same ratio were applied to the United States, a country of roughly 300 million people, there would be over 20 million internally displaced Americans. That is a staggering number when you consider the burden they would place on public services and the environment. Colombia by comparison is a relatively poor country, and many of these people, the majority of whom are women and children, lack access to basic health care, sanitation, education, adequate shelter, or employment. It is my understanding that Colombia has suitable laws for addressing the needs of the internally displaced, but the laws are too often ignored or poorly implemented. Insecurity and inadequate public services in isolated areas, where many of the displaced are located, hinder return to their homes and contribute to further displacement. Recently, the House of Representatives passed a resolution calling on the Colombian Government and the international community to prioritize the needs of displaced persons, and recommending that the United States increase funding for emergency and long-term assistance. The Senate version of the fiscal year 2008 State-Foreign Operations bill provides $40 million for assistance for displaced persons in Colombia. This is a $5 million increase above the President's budget request, which was woefully inadequate. As the White House urges Congress to continue funding aerial eradication programs which, despite billions of dollars, have failed to make an appreciable dent in the amount of coca under cultivation, one would like to think that at some point they will exhibit the same zeal for meeting the basic needs of Colombia's most vulnerable people.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, anybody who sees something that looks different: Hispanic, Black, someone wearing religious garb, they have a reasonable ground to turn them in under this. This is far too broad. Let it go to the Judiciary Committee--I guarantee we will have a hearing--but not on this. I make the motion that the pending amendment is not germane. I raise a point of order pursuant to section 305(b)2 and 310(e)1 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I wish to express my support for the Higher Education Access Act of 2007. I applaud Chairman Kennedy and Ranking Member Enzi for their work on crafting this bill that will widen access to higher education by providing for increased funding assistance available to American students for their higher education studies. The need for these improvements by now should be as clear to the Senate as it is to America's families. In recent years average college tuition rates have been rising faster than inflation and outpacing student financial aid. Skyrocketing tuitions are pricing our families out of their ability to afford higher education. This trend not only closes doors to opportunity in the lives of the Nation's young people; it also poses harsh consequences on our country and our communities, in ways that are evident across our economy. I am pleased that, in this new Congress, this bill has been brought forward to reverse the direction of recent budgets that have continued to erode the Federal Government's support of higher education with deep cuts in the funding support for colleges and universities. The Federal Government must rise to the challenge and improve our financial aid programs to ensure that college is an affordable option for all qualified students. No student should be thwarted from enrolling and graduating from college because of financial concerns. This bill accomplishes this goal through need-based grant aid to students by raising the maximum Pell grant to $5,100 next year, and up to $5,400 by 2011. Because tuition has increased well beyond the rate of student assistance, students today are graduating with staggering debt burdens. With the weight of this debt on their backs, recent college graduates understandably gravitate toward higher paying jobs that allow them to pay back their loans. Unfortunately, all too often these jobs are not in the arena of public service or areas that serve the vital public interests of our communities and of our country. We need to be doing more to support graduates who want to enter public service, be it as a child care provider, a doctor or nurse in the public health field, or a police officer or other type of first responder. I appreciate that the chairman has included strong provisions in this bill that will forgive the debt of borrowers who continue in public service careers such as nursing, teaching, or law enforcement for 10 years. Under this bill, a starting teacher in Vermont earning less than $30,000, and with debt of $20,000, could have his or her loan payments capped at 15 percent, reducing monthly payments by almost 40 percent. The increases for student aid in this bill are paid for by reducing the subsidies the government provides to lenders. I believe that increasing student assistance should be our highest priority in this bill and that this offset is a worthy and sensible exchange. However, while this bill reduces the subsidies for lenders, I am pleased that it recognizes the importance of not-for-profit lenders, by differentiating between the size of cuts intended for for-profit and for nonprofit lenders. Several States have established not-for-profit State agencies to administer financial aid and to provide their residents and students attending their schools with quality counseling services and low-cost loans. Vermont pioneered this movement by creating the Vermont Student Assistance Corporation more than 40 years ago. I do have concerns with the auction proposal contained within this bill. I am worried that it could potentially prevent Vermonters from exercising their right to choose where to borrow money by requiring the Secretary of Education to conduct an auction to select two lenders that will be permitted to make parent loans. Bids will be sealed, invisible to the public and to Congress, and awards will be made solely on the Secretary's determination of who offers the lowest cost to the government. We do not want to crowd out the not-for-profit agencies from providing PLUS loans to families in their State. I am hopeful that the chairman and ranking member will be willing to work on this portion of the bill in order to continue to recognize the important role of not- for-profit lenders.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this amendment is not germane. It is subject to the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. I would be happy to hold hearings on it. This is so overbroad that you could have all kinds of problems. It could invite racial and religious profiling. Suppose somebody is wearing religious garb and it frightens somebody. They could immediately--or maybe it doesn't frighten them, but they could say it does. It broadly protects Government officials from potential misconduct. It sets a new standard for a government official responding to reports of activity, and it is basically a court- stripping bill. If this is for more than a political point on this bill, fine, bring it to the Judiciary Committee. We will hold a hearing on it before the committee that has jurisdiction. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I am pleased to introduce the Protect Our Children First Act of 2007, which will reauthorize funding for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMEC through fiscal year 2013, and increase Federal support and coordination to help NCMEC programs to find missing children across the Nation. I am glad that Senator Hatch has joined me in introducing this bill, along with Senators Lincoln and Shelby. As members of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, we have all worked together on numerous pieces of legislation to protect the safety and welfare of our children, and I thank them for their continued leadership and for joining me in introducing this bill. Just a few months ago, we commemorated the 25th National Missing Children's Day, when our Nation particularly remembers our commitment to work together in locating and recovering missing children. It pains us all to see on TV, in the newspapers or on milk cartons photo after photo of missing children from various comers of our country. As a father and grandfather, I know that an abducted child is the worst nightmare. Unfortunately, it is a nightmare that happens all too often. Indeed, the Justice Department estimates that 2,200 children are reported missing each day. There are approximately 114,600 attempted stranger abductions every year, with 3,000 to 5,000 of those attempts succeeding. Experts estimate that children and youth comprise between 85 percent and 90 percent of missing person reports. These families deserve the assistance of the American people and a helping hand from the Congress and from Federal agencies. As the Nation's top resource center for child protection, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children spearheads national efforts to locate and recover missing children and raises public awareness about ways to prevent child abduction, molestation and sexual exploitation. NCMEC works to make our children safer by being a national voice and advocate for those too young to vote or speak up for their own rights. The center operates under a Congressional mandate and works in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to coordinate the efforts of law enforcement officers, social service agencies, elected officials, judges, prosecutors, educators, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the public and private sectors to break the cycle of violence that historically has perpetuated these needless crimes against children. Child advocates like John Walsh, who worked hard in helping Congress enact the National Center's charter, also continue to support the center's vital work. The center's professionals have disturbingly busy jobs, they have worked on more than 127,700 cases of missing and exploited children since its 1984 founding, helping to recover more than 110,200 children. The center raised its recovery rate from 64 percent in the 1990s to 96 percent today. The center has set up a nationwide, toll free, 24-hour telephone hotline to take reports about missing children and clues that might lead to their recovery, a National Child Pornography Tipline to handle calls from individuals reporting the sexual exploitation of children through the production and distribution of pornography, and a CyberTipline to process online leads from individuals reporting the sexual exploitation of children. It has taken the lead in circulating millions of photographs of missing children, and it serves as a vital resource for the 17,000 law enforcement agencies located throughout the Nation in the search for missing children and in the pursuit of adequate child protection. The center has also developed a ``Cold Case Unit'' within the Missing Children Division that focuses on long-term missing children cases. By using age progression technology, NCMEC has recovered 741 missing children. NCMEC forensic artists have also identified 24 missing children by using facial reconstructions of unidentified remains. In order to help the center solve these long-term cases, Section 5 of this bill would allow an Inspector General to provide staff support to NCMEC for the purpose of conducting reviews of inactive case files to develop recommendations for further investigation. The Inspector General community has one of the most diverse and talented criminal investigative cadres in the Federal Government. A vast majority of these special agents have come from traditional law enforcement agencies, and they are highly trained and extremely capable of dealing with complex criminal cases. Under current law, an Inspector General's duties are limited to activities related to the programs and operations of an agency. Our bill would allow an Inspector General to permit criminal investigators under his or her supervision to review cold case files, so long as doing so would not interfere with normal duties. An Inspector General would not conduct actual investigations, and any Inspector General would only commit staff when the office's mission-related workloads permitted. At no time would these activities be allowed to conflict with or delay the stated missions of an Inspector General. The Protect Our Children First Act also gives the Center better tools for working in coordination with Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to find missing children. This bill would provide analytical and technical support to assist law enforcement agencies in searching public databases to identify missing children and to locate abductors and would facilitate the deployment of the National Emergency Child Locator Center to assist in locating children in times of national disasters. In addition, the bill would allow NCMEC to work in conjunction with the FBI to provide fitness determinations based on criminal history of volunteers in child-serving organizations and track the incidence of attempted child abductions to report any links or patterns to law enforcement agencies. NCMEC is headquartered in Alexandria, VA, and operates branch offices in five other locations throughout the country to provide hands-on assistance to families of missing children, advocating legislative changes to better protect children, conducting an array of prevention and awareness programs, and motivating individuals to become personally involved in child-protection issues. It has also grown into an international organization, establishing the International Division of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which has been working to fulfill the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The international division provides assistance to parents, law enforcement, attorneys, nonprofit organizations, and other concerned individuals who are seeking assistance in preventing or resolving international child abductions. NCMEC manages to do all of this good work with an annual DOJ grant, which expires after fiscal year 2008. We must act now to extend its authorization so that it can continue to help keep children safe and families intact around the Nation. There is so much more to be done to ensure the safety of our children, and the legislation we introduce today will help the center in its efforts to prevent crimes that are committed against them. We have before us the type of bipartisan legislation that should be moved easily through the Senate and the House. The children we seek to protect through legislation like this should not be used as pawns by groups who would play politics by saddling such efforts with controversial measures. I applaud the ongoing work of the center and hope both the Senate and the House will promptly pass this bill to show our support for the NCMEC to continue to find our missing children and to protect exploited children across the country. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to correct a most unfortunate piece of legislation that was slipped into an appropriations bill several years ago, which will restore the Federal courts to their proper position in considering certain trademark issues. I joined Senator Craig, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Roberts on a version of this bill in the 109th Congress. That bill did not reach final passage, but its importance demands our renewed attention. Together, we are reintroducing the Judicial Powers Restoration Act of 2007. We will repeal Section 211 of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill of 1999. Section 211 was slipped into that appropriations bill at the eleventh hour, under the radar of most members of the Senate. It was done in a way specifically intended to bypass the normal legislative process. Its intent was to affect the outcome of a dispute over the ``Havana Club'' trademark for rum. Section 211 prohibits the registration or renewal of registration of a trademark of a business that was expropriated by the Cuban Government. It also disallows ``any assertion of rights'' by Cuban entities, or a foreign successor in interest to a Cuban entity, with respect to trademarks of expropriated businesses. Finally, the provision states that no U.S. Court may recognize the attempt by a Cuban entity or its successor in interest, from asserting treaty rights with respect to an expropriated mark unless the owner expressly consents. I am not here to help out a liquor company. Rather, I am here to ensure that intellectual property protections recognized by our laws are honored in our courts. I am here to ensure that U.S. courts may consider trademark cases arising under U.S. laws. Most importantly, I am here because the legislative process needs to take place in the open and in front of the people, not under cover of darkness and behind closed doors. I have been working with Senator Craig, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Roberts for more than three years on this issue, and I hope we can move quickly to pass this bipartisan legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Kennedy, the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor Pensions, in introducing the Health Information Privacy and Security Act of 2007, HIPSA. This comprehensive health privacy bill will ensure the right to privacy with respect to health information for millions of Americans. In America today, if you have a health record, you have a health privacy problem. The explosion of electronic health records, digital databases and the Internet is fueling a growing supply and demand for Americans' health information. The ability to easily access this information electronically, often by the click of a mouse, or a few key strokes on a computer, can be very useful in providing more cost- effective health care. But, the use of advancing technologies to access and share health information can also lead to a loss of personal privacy. In the Information Age, the traditional right and expectation of confidentiality between patient and doctor is at great risk. Without adequate safeguards to protect health privacy, many Americans will simply not seek the medical treatment that they need, nor agree to participate in health research, because they fear that their sensitive health information will be disclosed without then consent or knowledge. And those who do seek medical treatment must assume the risk of the unauthorized disclosure of their health information due to a data security breach or other privacy violation. The loss of health privacy is a growing threat to our national health care system that the Congress must address. Senator Kennedy and I both firmly believe that a fear of a loss of privacy cannot be allowed to deter Americans from seeking medical treatment. We are introducing this legislation today to close the privacy gap with respect to Americans' electronic health information. A guiding principle in drafting our health privacy bill has been that the American people will only support efforts to move toward health information technology if they are assured that their sensitive health information will be protected from unauthorized disclosure and from the growing dangers of identity crimes posed by data security breaches. The bill that we are introducing today takes several important steps to honor this principle and to protect the health privacy of all Americans. First, our bill guarantees the right of every American to privacy and security with respect to the use and disclosure of their health information. Under this legislation, every individual has the right to inspect and copy his or her own health records and to receive notice of the privacy rights and practices of data brokers and others who store this information in electronic databases. Our bill also ensures the security of electronic health information by requiring that data brokers establish safeguards to secure health information from data security breaches and other unauthorized disclosures. Second, our bill places meaningful restrictions on the disclosure of sensitive health information. The bill expressly prohibits the disclosure or use of health information without a patient's authorization and requires that any health information intended to be used for medical research first be stripped of personally identifying information to protect an individual's privacy. There are exceptions to these restrictions for law enforcement, public safety and national security purposes. Our bill also requires that patients be notified of a data security breach involving their health information within 15 days of discovery of the breach. The bill provides for important exceptions to this notice requirement for law enforcement and national security reasons. Thirdly, our bill addresses the growing fear of many Americans that they will not be able to obtain important health information about a parent or child in situations involving a medical emergency, because of confusion about the requirements of current health privacy laws. The New York Times recently reported that many health care providers are overzealously applying health privacy laws, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, HIPAA, thwarting the legitimate efforts of family members, caretakers and even law enforcement to obtain critical health information about patients in their care. Our bill expressly allows health care providers to disclose health information to law enforcement for legitimate purposes and to a patient's next of kin, provided that the patient has been notified of their right to object to such disclosure. The bill also establishes a national office of health information privacy within the Department of Health and Human Services to aid American consumers in learning about their health privacy rights. Lastly, our bill contains meaningful civil and criminal enforcement provisions to discourage and punish the wrongful disclosure of Americans' sensitive health information. The bill makes it a Federal crime to knowingly and intentionally disclose or use sensitive health information without an individual's consent. Violators of this provision are subject to a criminal penalty of up to $500,000 and up to 10 years in prison, if the violation is committed with the intent to sell or use sensitive health information for economic gain. In addition, the bill authorizes the Attorney General to file a civil action in Federal district court to obtain civil penalties from entities that fail to adequately safeguard electronic health records, or to provide consumers with information about their health privacy rights. Senator Kennedy and I have worked on this legislation for more than a decade and we both understand the need to carefully balance the right to health privacy with the legitimate needs of health care providers, medical researchers and public health and law enforcement officials. Our bill strikes the right balance between protecting privacy and ensuring public safety. We have also conferred extensively with the many stakeholders in the health care community in crafting this legislation and our bill is supported by a wide range of public policy, consumer and health care organizations from across the political spectrum. Senator Kennedy and I believe that the right to health privacy is of vital interest to all Americans. For this reason, and on behalf of the millions of Americans who are currently at risk of either foregoing medical treatment or losing their right to health privacy, I urge all Senators to join us in supporting this important privacy legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a copy of the July 3, 2007, the New York Times article entitled ``Keeping Patients' Details Private, Even From Kin,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, like all of the others, I was here throughout the night. I was happy to do that because I strongly supported the Levin-Reed amendment. But I had hoped that the filibuster would be ended on this vital piece of legislation. I was 1 of 23 Senators who voted against going to war in Iraq. The distinguished Presiding Officer, my Senate partner from Vermont, voted a similar way in the other body. Mr. President, the President's Iraq strategy has been a disaster. It was born of deception, fueled by incompetence, and pursued through arrogance and stubbornness. This strategy has not made us safer. It has undermined the international credibility that took generations of Americans' sacrifice to build; it has squandered billions of hard-earned tax dollars that would have been better used in directly countering terrorists; it has skewed our priorities here at home; it has weakened our military readiness; and it has created an open sore in an already volatile Middle East. It is time to extricate our troops from Iraq's civil war and let the Iraqis and their regional neighbors forge their own political settlement. As many predicted, the security situation in Iraq has not appreciably improved despite the President's surge strategy. The ongoing violence comes from a deadly brew of suicide bombings, intra-ethnic conflict, and out-of-control militias--all unleashed by the President's poorly planned invasion and occupation of the country. Our troops can provide some semblance of security in limited areas for limited periods of time. But this fleeting security largely just shifts the focal points of violence, and it comes at the horrific price of the lives and limbs of still more of our soldiers and marines killed and maimed every day in roadside bomb attacks and ambushes. The issue is not whether our troops can gain control of a few city blocks but whether there is any way that we can stop Iraq's civil war. I challenge anyone to say how we can do that, when the Iraqis do not yet have the political will to do it themselves. The Iraqi Army is fraught with ethnic divisions and few Iraqi units are capable of fighting successfully on their own. As others have pointed out, it often appears the Shiite-dominated Iraqi Army is simply out to settle scores with the Sunnis who ruled Iraq under Saddam Hussein. The unfortunate truth is that the Iraqi Army cannot bring security now, and it is unlikely to be able to in the coming years without overwhelming, side-by-side support and sacrifice of American soldiers. That leaves political reconciliation, and we all know where that stands. The Iraqis are no closer to an oil revenue-sharing agreement, no closer to an acceptable political arrangement, and no closer to a functioning government that serves all Iraqis. Our presence has become an excuse for inaction. Why should Shiites sacrifice when they have American forces to die for them? Why should the Kurds be more conciliatory when they think we will protect them forever? Why should the Sunnis reconcile among themselves when they can fight Americans together? Rory Stewart, an insightful author and observer of the Middle East, recently commented that our presence in Iraq--is to use his phrase-- ``infantilizing Iraqi politics,'' making the Iraqis completely incapable of finding their own way. As our troops are withdrawing, we should make a concerted diplomatic push, bringing together representatives of Iraq's Government and Iraq's neighbors. They would have little choice but to recognize that without the U.S. military's constant presence, they have to make some kind of accommodation among themselves. That is what the Levin-Reed and the Feingold-Reid-Leahy amendments would accomplish. Based closely on the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, both amendments would require the withdrawal of U.S. forces in Iraq to commence within 120 days. By springtime of next year, only a small number of troops necessary for limited counter terrorism, force protection, and training purposes would remain in the country. These amendments would effectively end the U.S. military presence in Iraq as we know it. The White House wants to wait to until September, when General Petraeus will report on progress from the surge. Yet it is folly to wait when we already know what the answer will be. We are going to hear words like: The situation is still challenging, but we are making progress. We are going to get a report like the glossy one released last week, which said the Iraqis are making progress in some areas, as if that is enough reason to continue further still down the wrong road. We can already see the way the review is predetermined in statements of General Petraeus's deputies. General Odierno told reporters a couple of months ago that the current surge level of U.S. troops would be needed in Iraq through next year. Major General Lynch, the commander of the southern portion of Baghdad, echoed that view only yesterday. We in Congress have a constitutional responsibility to act now. If we put off developing a consensus plan for the redeployment of U.S. forces, more of our troops will be needlessly killed and wounded. More innocent Iraqis will lose their lives. And, as today's public summaries of the National Intelligence Assessment on al-Qaida underscore, the war in Iraq has made our country less safe. It is an indictment of the ruinous policies and strategies this administration has pursued in Iraq, year after year. We must end this treadmill trudge to nowhere. We must show the Iraqis that only they can save their country. It is time to shift focus back to Afghanistan and to rebuild our military and our defenses at home. It is time to restore our reputation as a nation united in combating terrorism but unwilling any longer to sacrifice our sons, our daughters or our values for a flawed policy that cannot succeed. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to proceed as in morning business for up to 6 minutes.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a question without the Senator yielding his right to the floor?

Mr. LEAHY. I ask the distinguished majority leader if he has not had experiences similar to mine. I was in Vermont over the weekend, as I am most weekends. I get stopped by people in the grocery store or putting gas in the car--we are a small State, and you tend to know everybody; they are Republicans and they are Democrats--and I get asked the constant question, if the President will not listen to us about getting out, can you people in Congress vote on something? Can you vote? Can you either vote to keep us there or vote to get us out, but stand up? My answer to them is we are prepared to vote on our side of the aisle. Senator Reid and those following him are prepared to vote, but we are stopped from voting. I am wondering whether the distinguished majority leader, when he goes home to Nevada, whether he doesn't hear similar sentiments about: Let us vote. Let us vote.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Kennedy, the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor Pensions, in introducing the Health Information Privacy and Security Act of 2007, HIPSA. This comprehensive health privacy bill will ensure the right to privacy with respect to health information for millions of Americans. In America today, if you have a health record, you have a health privacy problem. The explosion of electronic health records, digital databases and the Internet is fueling a growing supply and demand for Americans' health information. The ability to easily access this information electronically, often by the click of a mouse, or a few key strokes on a computer, can be very useful in providing more cost- effective health care. But, the use of advancing technologies to access and share health information can also lead to a loss of personal privacy. In the Information Age, the traditional right and expectation of confidentiality between patient and doctor is at great risk. Without adequate safeguards to protect health privacy, many Americans will simply not seek the medical treatment that they need, nor agree to participate in health research, because they fear that their sensitive health information will be disclosed without then consent or knowledge. And those who do seek medical treatment must assume the risk of the unauthorized disclosure of their health information due to a data security breach or other privacy violation. The loss of health privacy is a growing threat to our national health care system that the Congress must address. Senator Kennedy and I both firmly believe that a fear of a loss of privacy cannot be allowed to deter Americans from seeking medical treatment. We are introducing this legislation today to close the privacy gap with respect to Americans' electronic health information. A guiding principle in drafting our health privacy bill has been that the American people will only support efforts to move toward health information technology if they are assured that their sensitive health information will be protected from unauthorized disclosure and from the growing dangers of identity crimes posed by data security breaches. The bill that we are introducing today takes several important steps to honor this principle and to protect the health privacy of all Americans. First, our bill guarantees the right of every American to privacy and security with respect to the use and disclosure of their health information. Under this legislation, every individual has the right to inspect and copy his or her own health records and to receive notice of the privacy rights and practices of data brokers and others who store this information in electronic databases. Our bill also ensures the security of electronic health information by requiring that data brokers establish safeguards to secure health information from data security breaches and other unauthorized disclosures. Second, our bill places meaningful restrictions on the disclosure of sensitive health information. The bill expressly prohibits the disclosure or use of health information without a patient's authorization and requires that any health information intended to be used for medical research first be stripped of personally identifying information to protect an individual's privacy. There are exceptions to these restrictions for law enforcement, public safety and national security purposes. Our bill also requires that patients be notified of a data security breach involving their health information within 15 days of discovery of the breach. The bill provides for important exceptions to this notice requirement for law enforcement and national security reasons. Thirdly, our bill addresses the growing fear of many Americans that they will not be able to obtain important health information about a parent or child in situations involving a medical emergency, because of confusion about the requirements of current health privacy laws. The New York Times recently reported that many health care providers are overzealously applying health privacy laws, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, HIPAA, thwarting the legitimate efforts of family members, caretakers and even law enforcement to obtain critical health information about patients in their care. Our bill expressly allows health care providers to disclose health information to law enforcement for legitimate purposes and to a patient's next of kin, provided that the patient has been notified of their right to object to such disclosure. The bill also establishes a national office of health information privacy within the Department of Health and Human Services to aid American consumers in learning about their health privacy rights. Lastly, our bill contains meaningful civil and criminal enforcement provisions to discourage and punish the wrongful disclosure of Americans' sensitive health information. The bill makes it a Federal crime to knowingly and intentionally disclose or use sensitive health information without an individual's consent. Violators of this provision are subject to a criminal penalty of up to $500,000 and up to 10 years in prison, if the violation is committed with the intent to sell or use sensitive health information for economic gain. In addition, the bill authorizes the Attorney General to file a civil action in Federal district court to obtain civil penalties from entities that fail to adequately safeguard electronic health records, or to provide consumers with information about their health privacy rights. Senator Kennedy and I have worked on this legislation for more than a decade and we both understand the need to carefully balance the right to health privacy with the legitimate needs of health care providers, medical researchers and public health and law enforcement officials. Our bill strikes the right balance between protecting privacy and ensuring public safety. We have also conferred extensively with the many stakeholders in the health care community in crafting this legislation and our bill is supported by a wide range of public policy, consumer and health care organizations from across the political spectrum. Senator Kennedy and I believe that the right to health privacy is of vital interest to all Americans. For this reason, and on behalf of the millions of Americans who are currently at risk of either foregoing medical treatment or losing their right to health privacy, I urge all Senators to join us in supporting this important privacy legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a copy of the July 3, 2007, the New York Times article entitled ``Keeping Patients' Details Private, Even From Kin,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to correct a most unfortunate piece of legislation that was slipped into an appropriations bill several years ago, which will restore the Federal courts to their proper position in considering certain trademark issues. I joined Senator Craig, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Roberts on a version of this bill in the 109th Congress. That bill did not reach final passage, but its importance demands our renewed attention. Together, we are reintroducing the Judicial Powers Restoration Act of 2007. We will repeal Section 211 of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill of 1999. Section 211 was slipped into that appropriations bill at the eleventh hour, under the radar of most members of the Senate. It was done in a way specifically intended to bypass the normal legislative process. Its intent was to affect the outcome of a dispute over the ``Havana Club'' trademark for rum. Section 211 prohibits the registration or renewal of registration of a trademark of a business that was expropriated by the Cuban Government. It also disallows ``any assertion of rights'' by Cuban entities, or a foreign successor in interest to a Cuban entity, with respect to trademarks of expropriated businesses. Finally, the provision states that no U.S. Court may recognize the attempt by a Cuban entity or its successor in interest, from asserting treaty rights with respect to an expropriated mark unless the owner expressly consents. I am not here to help out a liquor company. Rather, I am here to ensure that intellectual property protections recognized by our laws are honored in our courts. I am here to ensure that U.S. courts may consider trademark cases arising under U.S. laws. Most importantly, I am here because the legislative process needs to take place in the open and in front of the people, not under cover of darkness and behind closed doors. I have been working with Senator Craig, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Roberts for more than three years on this issue, and I hope we can move quickly to pass this bipartisan legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to outline some of the legislative activities of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Some would rather pick fights about controversial judicial nominees. The disappointing decisions from this year's Supreme Court term remind us that this President has been quite successful in moving the Federal courts to the right. This President has not only appointed two members of the Supreme Court but has also already appointed almost one-third of the 871-member Federal judiciary. When the appointments of his father and other Republican Presidents are considered, more than two-thirds of all current Federal judges were appointed by Republican Presidents. Of course, the Judiciary Committee has been engaged in oversight efforts this year with regard to the U.S. attorney scandal and other examples of White House interference with Federal law enforcement. Despite the attitude of the current administration, our Constitution does not include the phrase ``unitary executive'' or ``executive privilege.'' What the U.S. Constitution does provide in the oath of office is that the President must swear to ``faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States'' and ``preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' His essential duties require him to ``take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' I have great concern with regard to how this administration is fulfilling those essential duties. The political intrusion into the law enforcement functions of the Government through the scheme to fire and replace our U.S. attorneys is most troubling. The recent decision to override a prosecution, jury trial, conviction and prison sentence for one of his aides, to excuse his lying to Federal investigators and a grand jury and his perjury, and to reward his silence and purportedly bad memory seems an abuse of the constitutional pardon power. The lack of accountability for anyone in the Bush administration has reached new heights--or depths. The secret determination to ignore our surveillance laws and engage in years of warrantless wiretapping of Americans is another instance we are investigating that appears at odds with the Constitution's directive to ``take care that the Laws be faithfully executed'' and that the liberties of the American people secured by the Constitution be protected. While our oversight efforts have taken a good deal of time and effort, we have simultaneously succeeded in an ambitious legislative agenda. That is what I would like to focus on for a few minutes. While the committee has been productive in reporting a number of bipartisan measures to the Senate, Republican holds have to date been blocking Senate action on these measures. Republican holds and filibusters have not been limited to obstructing our efforts to support our troops, rebuild our National Guard, and bring an end to the failed policies that have led to the deaths of so many in a civil war in Iraq. Let me mention a few examples of beneficial legislation that are being stalled, as well: We just observed the 41st anniversary of the Freedom of Information Act ``FOIA'' on July 4. An important bipartisan FOIA reform measure-- the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act, the OPEN Government Act, S. 849,--was favorably reported in April. Its consideration has been blocked by a Republican objection. The OPEN Government Act promotes and enhances the public disclosure of government information pursuant to FOIA. This legislation will also provide much-needed reforms to strengthen FOIA by, among other things, helping Americans to obtain timely responses to their FOIA requests and improving transparency in the Federal Government's FOIA process. This bill is cosponsored by a bipartisan group of 14 Senators, including my lead Republican cosponsor Senator Cornyn. The OPEN Government Act is also supported by more than 115 open government, business and news media organizations from across the political and ideological spectrum, including, the American Library Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, OpenTheGovernment.org, Public Citizen, the Republican Liberty Caucus, the Sunshine in Government Initiative and the Vermont Press Association. The passage and enactment of this important FOIA reform legislation will improve government transparency and openness for all Americans. The bill has now been stalled by Republican objection for several weeks. A second measure the committee reported months ago that has been stalled by unspecified objection from the other side of the aisle is The War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007, S. 119. This bill provides a significant new tool for Federal law enforcement to combat the scourge of war profiteering, which is needed now more than ever given the ongoing reports of rampant fraud, waste, and abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill now has the support of Senator Sessions, after being modified to eliminate potential objections to specific language in the bill and we have circulated an amendment to combine it with the Sessions-Landrieu Emergency and Disaster Assistance Fraud Penalty Enhancement Act of 2007, S. 863, to be a legislative package that should win overwhelming bipartisan Senate support. Passage of this measure is long overdue and is being blocked by unspecified Republican objection. A third measure that the Judiciary Committee unanimously reported was the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Act, S. 535. This is a good bill, authored by Senator Dodd and Representative John Lewis in the House. The Senate bill and Senate consideration of the House-passed companion measure have been blocked by yet another Republican objection. These are just three examples of matters currently being delayed and obstructed by unspecified objection from the other side of the aisle. The American people may begin to see a pattern. Each of these measures should command majority support in the Senate. They may be able to command supermajority support on their merits. If we could only get to their merits. So while the Judiciary Committee has remained productive, its efforts to enact helpful, remedial legislation continue to be thwarted by Republican objections.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, this week, the Senate is engaged again in an intense debate about one of the most pivotal issues facing our Nation and its families right now--the ongoing war in Iraq. There is great division in the country and in the Congress on many of these issues, but I believe there is one area where we remain united, and that is in support and appreciation of our troops and their families and friends here at home. The Nation shares the sorrow and grief over the loss of so many fine Americans in war. Our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have come at the cost of precious American lives. No one knows that pain more than those loved ones left behind--the spouses, the parents, the sons, and the daughters who are left to pick up the pieces. A gaping hole of unimaginable proportions opens with each and every one of these family losses. Families in Vermont have gone through more than their share of the pain. Vermont has suffered the highest per capita casualty rate of any State in the Nation during these ongoing operations. We are a State of just over 600,000 people, and many of our State's sons and daughters are part of the Vermont National Guard, the Reserves, and the Active- Duty Forces. Twenty-six servicemembers with Vermont ties have given their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. Behind the names of those Vermonters are dozens of families and hundreds of friends facing that all-too-real and perhaps unknowable loss. When I go to these funerals and I look around in the church or the synagogue where the funeral is being held, I see so many people I have known from childhood days and realize they, too, are members of the family of those who have died. Earlier this year, dedicated students at Vermont's Norwich University produced a documentary about these families coping with the loss of their loved ones. Titled ``Vermont Fallen,'' the film documents how many of these family members have reacted, how they have tried to cope. In the darkest and saddest of times, this project has helped a new Vermont family to emerge, brought together by community screenings of the film. They have been able since then to turn to each other for comfort. The Norwich students' project has offered a glimpse into the searing and highly personal grief and mourning that has touched thousands of American families and scores of American communities across Vermont and across the country. They have produced a tribute that speaks directly to each human heart. Tomorrow, at Arlington National Cemetery, one of our fallen, 1LT Mark Dooley, will be interred. Lieutenant Dooley selflessly died in the line of duty in Iraq in 2005. He was a member of the police department in Wilmington, VT, a lovely town that is nestled right in southern Vermont, almost on a midline with the Green Mountains. My wife Marcelle and I went to the police station after his death just to sign the condolences and to announce our condolences. Lieutenant Dooley's parents will also be there, as well as other members of his family, and in a sense, every Vermonter will be there. Joining the Dooleys, lending their unique understanding of the special bond that comes from it, will be the families of the ``Vermont Fallen.'' I hope the Dooleys and what has now become their extended family will find comfort in one another. They deserve to be in the thoughts, the hearts, and prayers of all Vermonters and every American as they gather at Arlington. They are in the thoughts and prayers of the Members of the Senate. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of the ``Vermont Fallen.''

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I would renew my unanimous consent request. Back to where I started.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I understand the response of the distinguished senior Senator from Michigan, but I wonder if he might give some indication to this Senator whether he believes that at some time an effort can be made to bring forward--the amendment has been filed. I was erroneous. It has been filed. But assuming it is germane, some time the amendment, Specter-Leahy, et al, amendment will be brought forth.

Mr. LEAHY. The amendment is filed.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, in that regard, while the two managers are on the Senate floor, on Tuesday, the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, and I came to the floor to offer our amendment--at least to get it filed--on habeas corpus, which has been joined by many Senators on both sides of the aisle. That was objected to. I am just wondering: We have been trying every day since. Can the managers give me some idea of when Senator Specter and I may begin the debate on that amendment?

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I wonder if the Senator will just give me 4 minutes. Vermont has lost per capita more men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan than any other State. One is being interred tomorrow. I wonder if I may have 4 minutes to speak about that person in morning business because the family will be here tomorrow for interment.