Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong concern regarding the political and economic situation in Haiti and the effect this will have on the upcoming elections in that country. The events of the last few months in Haiti have been dispiriting for those who have long sought stability and progress in that country. Due to the precarious political and security situation in Haiti, the question must be raised; can free and fair elections be carried out in Haiti on schedule? Or should they be postponed until we can guarantee a more favorable environment for legitimate elect to take place? Nearly a year and a half has passed since President Aristide was removed from power and since then the country has continued to spiral downward into worsening poverty and political violence. The interim government of Prime Minister Gerard Latortue has failed to deliver stability and economic progress and for the fourth time this year, has postponed the date of the elections. Presently, elections are planned for December 15 and there is widespread concern that, if held, these elections will be anything but open, inclusive or fair. Currently, the political and social climate in Haiti is not conducive for credible elections to take place. The Haitian people are largely ignorant about the electoral system and detached from the process. Out of a total of 4.5 million eligible voters approximately 870,000 people have actually registered, with supporters of the Lavalas Party--a large portion of the electorate--threatening to boycott. According to reports, voter registration stations have been placed in less than 500 locations in contrast with the 5,000 stations available under the Aristide administration. Citizens are disenchanted over the lack of jobs, miserable government services, and rampant violence. As the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, four out of five Haitians live on less than $2 a day and nearly half of the children in the country are malnourished. In the last year, there have been almost 800 killings and criminal and political kidnappings by urban armed gangs have reached historic levels. Only recently, after a shaky start, the United Nations Stabilization Mission, MINUSTAH, has been making modest progress in preventing even greater levels of violence. But the security situation in Haiti remains volatile. Equally as troubling is our own government's seeming indifference to the deteriorating situation in Haiti. Several weeks ago, Secretary of State Rice flew into Port-au-Prince for a 5 hour visit that amounted to little more than a photo op. The situation there is fragile and demands immediate action and will require a long-term international commitment. Haiti's capacity to hold credible elections needs to be given serious consideration by the interim government, Bush administration and United Nations. While the Haitian constitution grants a new administration to be sworn in to office by February 7, 2006, the stakes are too great to push forward an election simply to adhere to an arbitrary date. If the consensus is that political and social conditions could be improved in the next 3 to 6 months, and there are serious problems that threaten the legitimacy of this election, we owe it to the people of Haiti to take the time necessary to work to address these problems so that the election is as fair as possible. The next few weeks present a seminal period for the Haitian people and the future of Haiti. Enormous logistical, political, and security obstacles need to be overcome if Haiti is to have elections with any semblance of credibility. There are very few options left for a country that is already teetering on the brink of state failure and cannot afford to lose much more. We must keep the best interests of the Haitian people in mind and do everything in our power to create the conditions necessary for Haiti to take the next step in transitioning toward democratic stability.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Rosa Parks and Judge William B. Bryant are two venerable figures in our Nation's movement toward equality for all Americans. I am proud that the Senate has taken the opportunity today to recognize and celebrate these two extraordinary individuals. I commend Senator Stabenow for introducing this bill to name a Federal building in Michigan after Rosa Parks, a cherished civil rights leader. I also commend the efforts of Senator Warner, who has worked with me for the past 3 years to name the new annex to the E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse in Washington, DC, the ``William B. Bryant Annex.'' Judge Bryant's service to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is truly historic. He continues to perform duties as a senior Federal judge at the age of 93. He began his legal career with the belief that lawyers could make a difference in eliminating the widespread racial segregation in the United States. He became a criminal defense lawyer in 1948, taking on many pro bono cases and was soon recognized by the U.S. Attorney's office for his skills as a defense attorney. The U.S. Attorney's office hired him in 1951 and he became the first African American to practice in Federal court here in the District. Judge Bryant was nominated by President Johnson to the Federal bench in 1965 and became the first African American Chief Judge for the United States District Court in DC. Naming the new annex to the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse after Judge Bryant is a fitting tribute to this distinguished jurist. Much like Judge Prettyman, Judge Bryant has had an illustrious career in public service and on the bench. I thank my colleagues for honoring Judge Bryant's service. Amendment No. 2292

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Provided it will not come out of our time, I have no objection.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. LEAHY. Does the Senator want to ask for further time?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we make that 21 minutes.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 3 years ago when the Congress and the country debated the resolution to give President Bush the authority to launch a preemptive war against Iraq, reference was often made to the lessons of Vietnam. There are many lessons, both of that war and of the efforts to end it. But one that made a deep impression on me came from former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. He was, after all, the architect of that war. He said our greatest mistake was not understanding our enemy. Vietnam was a relatively simple country. It had changed little in the preceding 3,000 years. It was for the most part racially, ethnically, linguistically, and even religiously homogeneous. One would have thought it would be easy for American military and political leaders to understand. Apparently it was not. The White House and the Pentagon, convinced that no country, particularly a tiny impoverished land of rice farmers, could withstand the military might of the United States, never bothered to study and understand the history or culture of Vietnam, and they made tragic miscalculations. They lacked the most basic knowledge of the motivation and the capabilities and resolve of the people they were fighting. At the start of the Iraq war, those who drew some analogies to Vietnam were ridiculed by the Pentagon and the White House. Iraq is not a Vietnam, they insisted. Our troops would be greeted as liberators. Troop strength was not a concern. Our mission would be quickly accomplished. Democracy would spread throughout the Middle East. Freedom was on the march. It is true that Vietnam and Iraq are vastly different societies, but the point was not that they are similar but that some of the same lessons apply. We did not understand Vietnam, a simple country, and we paid a huge price for our ignorance and our arrogance. Iraq, a complex country comprised of rival clans, tribes, and ethnic and religious factions who have fought each other for centuries, we understand even less. If this were not apparent to many at the start of this ill-conceived and politically motivated war, a war I opposed from the beginning, it should be obvious today. Yet to listen to the Secretary of Defense or to the President or the Vice President, one would never know it. We know today that President Bush decided to invade Iraq without evidence to support the use of force and well before Congress passed a resolution giving him the authority to do so--actually, authority he did not even believe he needed--despite our great Constitution which invests in the Congress the power to declare war. Twenty-three Senators voted against that resolution, and I will always be proud to have been one of them. We know today that the motivation for a plan to attack Iraq, hatched by a handful of political operatives, had taken hold within in the White House even before 9/11 and without any connection to the war on terrorism that came later. We know that the key public justifications for the war--to stop Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons and supporting al- Qaida--were based on faulty intelligence and outright distortions, and they have been thoroughly discredited. United Nations weapons inspectors, who were dismissed by the White House as being naive and ineffective, turned out to have gathered far better information with a tiny fraction of the budget of our own intelligence agencies. We know the insurgency is continuing to grow along with American casualties--1,999 killed, and at least 15,220 wounded, many with crippling injuries, as of yesterday--despite the same old ``light at the end of the tunnel'' assertions and cliches by the White House and top officials in the Pentagon. The sad but inescapable truth, which the President either does not see or refuses to believe or admit, is the Iraqi insurgency has steadily grown, in part because of, not in spite of, our presence there. After baiting the insurgents to ``bring them on,'' as the President said, we got what the President asked for. More than 2 years later, the pendulum has swung against us and the question is no longer whether we can stop the insurgency; the question is how do we extricate ourselves. According to soldiers who volunteered for duty in Iraq believing in the mission and who have returned home, many Iraqis who detest the barbaric tactics of the insurgents have also grown to despise us. They blame us for the lack of water and electricity, for the lack of jobs and health care, for the hardships and violence they are suffering day in and day out. Unlike our troops and their families who are making great sacrifices every day, most Americans have been asked to sacrifice nothing for this war. In fact, we don't pay the bills. The bills are being sent to our children and our grandchildren by way of our rapidly escalating national debt and annual deficits. Yet as the hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for the war continue to pile up and domestic programs, such as Medicaid, job training, and programs for needy students, are cut, then the sacrifices are going to be felt as well. Slogans have become little more than political rallying cries for the White House, slogans as empty and unfulfilled as ``mission accomplished.'' Our troops were sent to fight an unnecessary war without sufficient armor against these ruthless and barbaric bombing attacks, without adequate reinforcements, without a plan to win the peace, and without adequate medical care and other services when they return home on stretchers or crutches or with eye patches, unable to walk, to work, to pay their mortgages, or to support their families. Many of our veterans have been treated shamefully by their Government when it sent them into harm's way under false pretenses and again after they returned home. Today I worry about places such as Ramadi, where more than 300 members of the Army National Guard from my State of Vermont are currently serving valiantly alongside their comrades in the Marine Corps and the Pennsylvania National Guard. Dozens of other citizen soldiers from the Vermont Guard are serving across Iraq, while hundreds more are deployed throughout the Persian Gulf region. Many Vermonters have been killed in Ramadi and elsewhere by roadside bombs and all-too-accurate sniper attacks. The insurgents too often seem to attack and then escape with impunity. You can actually open newspapers and see photos of armed insurgents walking the streets of Iraq in broad daylight. Many of these cold-blooded attacks are by people who are willing to trade their own lives to kill civilians, security guards, and our soldiers who now have no way of knowing whom they can trust among the general population. The President has no plan to deal with Ramadi, let alone the rest of Iraq, except doing more of what we have been doing for more than 2 years at a cost of $5 billion a month--money we don't have and that future generations of Americans are going to have to repay. Nor has he proposed a practical alternative to our wasteful energy policy that guarantees our continued dependence on Persian Gulf oil for decades to come. I am sure that what our military is doing to train the Iraqi Army and what our billions upon billions of dollars are doing to help rebuild Iraq--whatever is not stolen or wasted by profiteering contractors--is making a difference. Iraq is no longer governed by a corrupt, ruthless dictator, and there have been halting but important steps toward representative government. I applaud the Iraqis who courageously stood in long lines to cast a ballot for a new constitution, despite the insurgents' threats. There are many profiles in courage among the Iraqi people, just as there are in the heroic and daily endeavors of United States soldiers there. But this progress masks deeper troubles and may be short lived, threatened by a widening insurgency and a divisive political process that is increasingly seen as leading to a Shiite-dominated theocracy governed by Islamic law and aligned with Iran, or the dissolution of Iraq into separate Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite states. Mr. President, this war has been a costly disaster for the United States of America. More than half of the American people now say they have lost confidence in the President's handling of it. Far from making us safer from terrorists, in fact, it has turned Iraq into a haven and recruiting ground for terrorists and deflected our attention and resources away from the fight against terrorism. If anything, it has emboldened our enemies, as it has become increasingly apparent that the most powerful army in the world cannot stop a determined insurgency. Regrettably, it is no longer a secret how vulnerable we are. Hurricane Katrina showed how tragically unprepared we are to respond to a major disaster 4 years after 9/11 and after wasting billions of dollars on an unnecessary war. Our cities are little further than the drawing board when it comes to developing workable evacuation plans for a terrorist attack or other emergency, not to mention how to feed, house, and provide for millions of displaced persons. This war has caused immense damage to our relations with the world's Muslims, a religion practiced by some 1.2 billion people, about which most Americans know virtually nothing. We cannot possibly mount an effective campaign against terrorism without the trust, respect, and the active support of Muslims, particularly in the Middle East where our image has been so badly damaged. Our weakened international reputation is another heavy price our country has paid for this war. Each day, as more and more Iraqi civilians, often children, lose their lives and limbs from suicide bombers and also from our bombs, the resentment and anger toward us intensifies. And every week, the number of U.S. service men and women who are killed or wounded creeps higher and will soon pass 2,000, but, even more tragically, shows no sign of diminishing. This war has isolated us from our allies, most of whom want no part of it, and if we continue on the course the President has set, it will also divide our country. Other Senators and Representatives, Republicans and Democrats, have expressed frustration and alarm with the President's failure to acknowledge that this war has been a costly mistake, that more of the same is not a workable policy, and that we need to change course. My friend Senator Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, has pointed out the increasing similarities to Vietnam. We learned this week that the administration has even resumed the discredited Vietnam-era practice of measuring progress by reporting body counts. White House and Pentagon officials and their staunchest supporters in Congress warn of a wider civil war if we pull our troops out. They could be right. In fact, it could be the first thing they have been right about since the beginning of this reckless adventure. My question to them is: When and how then do we extract ourselves from this mess? What does the President believe needs to happen before our troops can come home? What is his plan for getting to that point? If we cannot overcome the insurgency, what can we realistically expect to accomplish in Iraq--and at what cost--that requires the continued deployment of our troops? What is it that compels us to spend billions of dollars to rebuild the Iraqi military when our own National Guard is stretched to the breaking point and cannot even get the money for the equipment it needs? I doubt the President or the Secretary of Defense will answer these questions. Instead of answers, we get rhetoric that conflicts with just about everything we hear or read, including from some of this country's most distinguished retired military officers who served under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Six months ago, the Vice President said the insurgency was in its last throes. That was just the latest in a long string of grossly inaccurate statements and predictions and false expectations about Iraq. Secretary Rice, when asked recently when U.S. forces could begin to come home assuming the Administration's rosy predictions come true, could not, or would not, even venture a guess. Without answers--real answers, honest answers--to these questions, I will not support the open-ended deployment of our troops in a war that was based on falsehood and justified with hubris. Even though I opposed this war, I have prayed, like other Americans, that it would weaken the threat of terrorism and make the world safer, that our troops' sacrifices would be justified, and that the President had a plan for completing the mission. Instead, it has turned Iraq into a training ground for terrorists, it is fueling the insurgency, it is causing severe damage to the reputation and readiness of the United States military, and it is preventing us from addressing the inexcusable weaknesses in our homeland security. The Iraqi people, at least the Shiites and Kurds, have voted for a new constitution, as hastily drafted, flawed, and potentially divisive as it may be. Saddam Hussein, whose capacity for cruelty was seemingly limitless, is finally facing trial for his heinous crimes. Elections for a new national government are due by the end of the year. By then, it will be more than 2\1/2\ years since Saddam's overthrow, and we will have given the Iraqi people a chance to chart their own course. The sooner we reduce our presence there, the sooner they will have to make the difficult decisions necessary to solve their own problems in their own country. Our military commanders say that Iraq's problems increasingly need to be solved through the political process, not through military force. We must show Iraq and the world that we are not an occupying force, and that we have no designs on their country or their oil. The American people need to know that the President has a plan to bring our troops home. Once a new Iraqi government is in place, I believe the President should consult with Congress on a flexible plan that includes pulling our troops back from the densely populated areas where they are suffering the worst casualties and to bring them home. It is also long overdue for Congress and the White House to reassess our policy toward this region. The President has declared democracy is taking root throughout the Middle East, and there have been some small, positive steps. But they are dwarfed by the ongoing threat posed by Iran, Syria's continued meddling in Iraq and Lebanon, repression and corruption in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the danger that the momentum for peace from Israel's withdrawal from Gaza will be lost as settlement construction accelerates in the West Bank, and the widespread--albeit mistaken-- belief among Muslims that the United States wants to destroy Islam itself. Just as the White House's obsession with Iraq has diverted our resources and impeded our efforts to strengthen our defenses against terrorism at home, so has it made it more difficult to constructively, with our allies, address these regional threats. As I have said, I did not support this war, and I believe that history will not judge kindly those who got us into this debacle by attacking a country that did not threaten us, after deceiving the American people and ridiculing those who appealed for caution and for instead mobilizing our resources directly against the threat of terrorism. I worry that many of our young veterans who have gone to Iraq and experienced the brutality and trauma of war and may already feel guilty for having survived, will increasingly question its purpose. As the architects of this war move on to other jobs, I fear we are going to see another generation of veterans, many of them physically and psychologically scarred for life, who feel a deep sense of betrayal by their Government. If President Bush will not say what remains to be done before he can declare victory and bring our troops home, then the Congress should be voting on what this war is really costing the Nation. We should vote on paying for the war versus cutting Medicaid, as some are proposing; or pay for the war versus cutting VA programs that are already unable to pay the staggering costs of treatment and rehabilitation for our injured veterans; or pay for it versus rebuilding our National Guard; or rebuilding FEMA; or securing our ports and our borders; or investing in our intelligence so we can finally capture Osama bin Laden; or investing in health care for the tens of millions of Americans who cannot afford to get sick; or fixing our troubled schools, so our children can learn to do a better job than we have of making the world a safer place for all people. These, and the tarnished reputation of a country that I love and so many once admired as not only powerful buy also good and just are the real costs of this war. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to Caroline Burke during consideration of this legislation, as well as votes that may occur.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier this year I was pleased to join the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, Senators DeWine and Kohl, on the introduction of the ``Antitrust Criminal Investigative Improvements Act of 2005, ACIIA. Today, I am even more pleased to see the Senate pass this bill. This is important legislation, and I hope that it will receive the speedy vote in the House of Representatives that it deserves. Once the President signs it into law, the Department of Justice will finally have another vital tool to enforce antitrust laws--wiretap authority to investigate and prosecute criminal antitrust violations. America's antitrust laws play a critical role in protecting consumers and ensuring a fair and competitive marketplace for business. Congress's first antitrust law, the Sherman Antitrust Law, was enacted in 1890 to prohibit abusive monopolies and restraints of trade. Since that time, enforcement of the antitrust laws has benefited consumers through lower prices, greater variety, and higher quality products and services. But antitrust criminal offenses have been somewhat anomalous in the law, for they have not qualified for judicially approved wiretaps. The ACIIA will add criminal price fixing and bid rigging to the many crimes that are already ``predicate offenses'' for wiretap purposes. There are over 150 offenses that currently qualify for judicial approved wiretaps. These ``predicate offenses'' under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, include crimes of lesser impact and significance than criminal antitrust violations. The ACIIA will ensure that the Department of Justice has the tools commensurate with the seriousness of the violations. Under current law, the Department of Justice must often rely on the FBI or other investigative agencies to obtain evidence. While the Justice Department may engage in court-authorized searches of business records, it may only monitor phone calls of informants or the conversations of consenting parties. In light of the seriousness of economic harms caused by violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the inability of the Department of Justice to obtain wiretaps when investigating criminal antitrust violations makes little sense. The evidence that can be acquired through wiretaps is precisely the type of evidence that is essential for the successful prosecution and prevention of serious antitrust violations. This bill equips the Department of Justice investigators and prosecutors the opportunity to zealously enforce the criminal antitrust laws of the United States.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield back our time.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we will withdraw the amendment. If it is at the desk, we withdraw it.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will tell the distinguished senior Senator from Missouri, first off, that he and the distinguished senior Senator from Washington State have been doing a wonderful job in moving this bill. It is a difficult bill. I know. I have watched it being put together in the Appropriations Committee. I know the two of them have worked extraordinarily hard. I mean to commend them, whether the distinguished Senator supports me and the Senator from Minnesota or not in our bipartisan amendment, number 2157, to restore funding to the Community Development Block Grants, Section 8 Housing Vouchers, and Public Housing Capital and Operating Funds. I think all of us should commend them for the work they have done and want to work with them to look for alternatives that will make our amendment acceptable to them. I suggest the absence of a quorum. I think the chairman will probably be pleased that I do.

Mr. LEAHY. 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. President, while we have the distinguished senior Senator from Missouri and the distinguished senior Senator from Washington and the distinguished Senator from Minnesota on the floor, let me propose this: We could spend the next several hours on our bipartisan amendment to restore funding to the Community Development Block Grants, Section 8 Housing Vouchers, and Public Housing Capital and Operating Funds, and there are enough of our 40 bipartisan cosponsors willing to speak that it would take several hours to do it. We would then end up on a 60-vote point of order, which may or may not go through. I know from nearly 30 years on the Appropriations Committee how it works. I have watched for decades the work of the distinguished Senator from Missouri and the distinguished Senator from Washington State. I know how hard both of them have worked to accommodate the needs of Senators from both sides of the aisle, and certainly in this case, when the key cosponsors are both Republican and Democrat. I see my friend from Minnesota on the floor. I have truly appreciated all the work Senator Coleman, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Graham and Senator Reed have put into crafting this amendment with me. I also thank our 35 other cosponsors, who strike a broad swath of the political spectrum. Might I suggest this, though: That we withhold our amendment and work to ensure that in conference we increase funds for these important community development and housing programs. I am on Appropriations. The Senator from Missouri is as well, of course, as is the Senator from Washington State. With Senator Coleman, we are all agreed on the need for Community Development Block Grant Programs, Section 8, HUD public housing. Between now and the time of conference, we will work closely together with the leaders of the Transportation-Treasury-HUD Appropriations subcommittee to see if we can increase these various areas. Would that make sense to the distinguished chairman?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have worked with both the Senators from Missouri and Washington State for years. I know they have commitments to all these programs and have always worked in a bipartisan way. I would be willing to accept those assurances. I ask my chief cosponsor, the Senator from Minnesota, how he feels about this commitment from the chairman and ranking member of the TTHUD Appropriations subcommittee?

Mr. LEAHY. Leahy-Coleman.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. What was the request?

Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, first, I note my dear friend of over 30 years, the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska, is in the chair, the President pro tempore of the Senate. I note that the President pro tempore showed his usual courtesy, instead of taking the chair initially to open the session, as he would, to allow me to do so to introduce my brother-in-law, Father Claude Pomerleau. I also note that our distinguished Chaplain, Dr. Barry Black, is here. I thank the Chaplain for his cooperation in making sure that Father Pomerleau could open the session. Of course, I thank the distinguished majority leader, Senator Frist, and the distinguished Democratic leader, Senator Reid. Mr. President, I note that Father Pomerleau is a very close member of our family. He is probably not used to hearing me call him Father Pomerleau; it has always been Claude. He was on the altar--not yet a priest but in the seminary--when my wife Marcelle and I were married slightly over 43 years ago. And 40 years ago this December, the two of us were able to be with his wonderful parents, Phil and Cecile Pomerleau, at his ordination in Rome--a very proud time for his parents, certainly a proud time for Claude, but also a very proud time for Marcelle and me. He has been, in many ways, our spiritual light and friend all these years. He is very much a brother to me, as he is to Marcelle. I have had the privilege one other time to have him as visiting Chaplain. And in my 31 years in the Senate, those two times stand out as highlights in my career. So again I thank the distinguished Senator from Alaska for showing his usual courtesy, and, of course, I cherish our friendship of over three decades. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, with the distinguished majority leader on the floor, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to go forward for 3 or 4 minutes on Senator Reid's time and go out of order at this point.