Sheldon Whitehouse

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I am disappointed to hear that. The Senator, of course, clearly has that right. As everyone in this body knows, we are facing a deadline of February 1 to conclude this legislation. There is considerable other business related to the stimulus package, given our economic concerns in this country, and I would hope now that the FISA bill has been called up, that we are on this bill here on the floor, that amendments to the title I provisions we are working on now could be called up and considered. It would certainly move things along in the process if they could be called up and debated so that when it came time for a vote, we could move more expeditiously through the process. I hope very much this is not a signal that it is anyone's intention to slow down this process. We saw in August how unfortunate the result can be when this body's time to give a major issue such as this significant attention is compressed. Indeed, I refer to that unfortunate August situation as ``the August stampede.'' I don't think we reflected great credit on this institution when we did what we did back then. The effort we are undertaking now is an effort, in fact, to remedy some of those concerns. There has been significant bipartisan effort to get us to this point. While there are clearly remaining points of disagreement, I would think it would be in everyone's interest to work through those issues and to give these different amendments a chance to be voted on. For instance, the amendment I had hoped to call up is one that is supported not only by myself but Chairman Rockefeller, the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee. It is supported by Chairman Leahy, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee. It is supported by Senator Schumer, the distinguished Senator from New York. It is supported by Senator Feingold, the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin who serves, like myself, on both the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. It addresses a very important issue to this body which is the terms on which we will allow this administration to spy on Americans. It is an amendment that a lot of work has gone into. It reflects a convergence of ideas that was developed by Senator Schumer and Senator Feingold in the Judiciary Committee, that we developed in the Intelligence Committee, again, through an often bipartisan process. Senator Feingold played a critical role in both committees in advancing this issue. We have worked very carefully with the Department of Justice to incorporate changes that they have recommended as technical assistance. It is a meaningful, worthy, well-thought-out amendment that merits consideration and discussion on the floor. It relates to an issue that is a fairly simple one but in order to understand it, you have to have a basic understanding, at least, of wiretap surveillance. As United States Attorney and as Rhode Island's Attorney General, I oversaw wiretap and surveillance investigations, and I am familiar with the procedures. With any electronic surveillance, whether it is in a domestic law enforcement context or intelligence gathering on international terrorism, what you find is that information about Americans is intercepted incidentally. You have, as all the prosecutors in this body well know, including the distinguished Presiding Officer, the target of your investigation. The target has certain rights; a warrant requirement under the Constitution, for instance. But what you find is that once you have surveillance up on your target, they obviously talk to other people. Those other people who are incidentally intercepted in the surveillance also have rights as well. In domestic law enforcement, there are clear and established procedures for what is called minimizing the interception of the conversations to the extent that they touch on the incidentally intercepted person who is not the target of the surveillance. The minimization procedures govern the collection and the retention of this information to ensure that the privacy of innocent Americans is protected. These are sensible measures. I have been in the trailers with the FBI agents as they are switching on and off to honor the minimization procedures. But one of the key elements of these minimization procedures is the knowledge on the part of the surveilling agency that they are subject to court oversight. That is natural in the domestic law enforcement context. You are operating under a court order to begin with. In the domestic context, it happens as a simple consequence of there being a court order in the first place. When you are dealing with Americans abroad and when they are swept up in international surveillance for national security purposes, the situation can be different. We have had to provide for these minimization procedures. Under the Senate Intelligence bill, the court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, is now being given the authority to approve the minimization procedures when an American is listened to incidentally in surveillance that targets another individual. The court has the authority to approve the procedures. But what was missing is that the court did not have the authority to determine whether the procedures it has approved are actually being followed. You would think that would be obvious. If you are going to set it up so that the court can approve minimization procedures, should it not follow as a matter of simple logic that the court should have the authority to see whether the procedures the court approved are in fact being followed? We have worked very carefully with Vice Chairman Bond, with Chairman Rockefeller, with the technical folks at the Director of National Intelligence Office, and at the Department of Justice. At present, we have a situation in which it has been agreed that the court will have the power to determine whether its rules are being followed if the target of the surveillance is an American in the United States. We have also reached agreement that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court will have the authority to determine whether its rules are being followed if the target is an American overseas. The issue that remains involves those cases in which the target is a foreign person but they are in touch with a U.S. person, an American, who is being incidentally intercepted because they are in touch with a foreign target--because the foreign target has called them, because the foreign target is discussing them, because they have called the foreign target, whatever. I cannot for the life of me understand why this is a difference that we are obliged to come to the Senate floor to decide. It would seem to me that when the purpose of the exercise is enforcing minimization procedures that benefit the U.S. person who is incidentally intercepted, it should not matter whether the target is an American in the United States or an American overseas or a foreign person. The person we are trying to protect is the U.S. person incidentally swept into the surveillance. So the purpose of this amendment, if I were to be permitted to call it up, would be to see to it that the court, which has the authority to determine the minimization procedures when there is a foreign target who talks to a United States person, should have what would seem to me obviously consequent authority to determine whether those rules it has approved are being followed. It may even be that it is so inherent in the nature of a court that subsequent litigation would determine that in fact the court does have that right. It comes, in its very nature as an article III court, to have the authority to determine whether its rules and whether its orders are being followed. But rather than force it to that point, it would be better if we simply cleared up the matter here. Again, I regret that merely calling up the amendment at this point is being objected to. I hope this is not a signal that we are trying to recreate, to put it mildly, the hectic atmosphere of the August stampede. I would like as quickly as possible to work through the amendments that relate to title I. There are a number of them. I expect we will be staying rather late if we can't start working through them now. But when the time comes, I will come back to the floor and again seek permission to call up this amendment; I hope at that time with more success. I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I wish to celebrate the extraordinary achievements of petty officer Scott Higgins of my State of Rhode Island, who today will be awarded the Coast Guard Commendation Medal for his efforts in the heroic rescue of the crew of the sailboat Sean Seamour II off the coast of New Jersey in May. On May 7, Aviation Machinery Technician 2nd Class Higgins was part of a four-man Coast Guard HH-60 helicopter crew, including LCDR Nevada Smith, LT J.G. Aaron Nelson, and aviation survival technician 2nd class Drew Dazzo, deployed in response to a distress signal from the 44-foot sailing vessel Sean Seamour II. The vessel, on a recreational sailing trip from Green Coves Spring, FL, to Portugal's Azores Islands, had capsized amidst the hurricane-force winds of Subtropical Storm Andrea. The three sailors aboard were forced to evacuate to a small raft just before their ship was swallowed by the ocean. Higgins, serving as flight mechanic, worked closely with Nelson, who piloted the helicopter, and Dazzo, the team's rescue swimmer, to execute their mission. Working quickly and expertly, Higgins lowered Dazzo over and over again into the towering waves to reach the sailboat crew. Once the first two sailors had been lifted to safety, Higgins and Nelson demonstrated what the Coast Guard's Summary of Action called ``the utmost of crew coordination, teamwork and aeronautical skill'' as they hoisted Dazzo only 30 feet above the water to position him closer to the life raft and the last survivor. As Higgins worked to raise the final survivor from the ocean, he felt the hoist cable begin to fray with the rescue basket still 100 feet below the helicopter and the rescue swimmer still in the water. Despite suffering from exhaustion and the effects of saltwater inhalation, Dazzo waited to request an emergency pickup until he could see that the last survivor was in the aircraft. Again demonstrating extraordinary skill and teamwork in a life-or- death situation, Higgins managed to get the rescued sailor safely aboard and immediately redeploy the compromised hoist cable to retrieve Dazzo. In the midst of an intense storm, all aboard were safely returned to shore. Higgins and the rest of his team successfully rescued the crew of the Sean Seamour II despite a punishing storm that threatened their lives and the lives of those they were sent to help. As the Coast Guard's Summary of Action stated: High winds, treacherous seas and extreme off-shore distances created a situation that required intense operational risk management, exacting crew coordination, and incredible skill and courage. Without the complete competence, concentration, and professionalism of every crewmember, this operation could have had a disastrous outcome. Each crewmember was essential to the life saving rescue of three mariners. The Coast Guard Commendation Medal recognizes meritorious service resulting in unusual and outstanding achievement. The courage, bravery, and skill demonstrated by Machinery Technician Higgins in May shows that he is more than worthy of this great honor. I offer my congratulations to petty officer Scott Higgins and to all those whom the Coast Guard recognizes today. His achievements have brought honor both to him and to his home state of Rhode Island.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to the life and work of one of our Nation's great artists, Sheila Isham, on her 80th birthday. Sheila was born in New York City, 80 years ago today. She grew up in Cedarhurst, just outside the city, and on an 80-acre island in the St. Lawrence River in Canada, which for years lacked both electricity and running water. She graduated from Bryn Mawr College in 1950 and married Heyward Isham, an officer in the U.S. Foreign Service, and the couple moved to Berlin. There began her path to becoming an artist. Sheila became the first foreigner to gain admission to the Berlin Art Academy in the years following World War II. There, she studied with Hans Uhlman, a student of abstract painter Kasimir Malevich, and absorbed the works of Wassily Kandinsky. In 1955 Heyward Isham was posted to the American embassy in Moscow, and the Ishams moved to Russia, where life became very restricted. Sheila has told of having to import several years' worth of food from outside the country, of being watched and followed constantly, and of being unable to meet with other artists or to draw freely. A 2004 profile in the St. Petersburg Times reported that ``once, Isham was almost arrested by a vigilant Soviet officer who noticed that an American was drawing a building, which, according to Isham, turned out to be a center for KGB interrogations.'' But Sheila continued her work. She met George Kostakis, a prominent collector of the Russian avant-garde, including works by Malevich, Kandinsky, Tatlin, Popova, Goncharova, and Larionov, and she traveled through Georgia, St. Petersburg, Yalta, Sochi, and Tblisi to sketch and meet with local artists and writers. After a few years back in the United States, Sheila and her family traveled to Hong Kong, where she would live and work for 5 years. She taught contemporary arts at the Chinese University, exhibited her work in China and Japan, and studied with a master of classical Chinese calligraphy. ``I chose calligraphy because it seemed to me to be abstract and perfect at the same time,'' she said. On her return to America in 1965, Sheila began painting, exploring colors and the nexus between Eastern and Western cultures. She would later live and travel in France, Haiti, India, and finally New York, where she has made her home. Sheila Isham's work is part of the permanent collections of some of America's most important institutions, including the Corcoran Gallery of Art, the Hirshhorn Museum, the Library of Congress, the Museum of Modern Art in New York, the Smithsonian, the National Museum for Women in the Arts, and the Philadelphia Museum of Art. She has been the subject of major one-person exhibitions at the Smithsonian, the Corcoran, and the Russian Museum, and countless gallery and traveling exhibitions, including at the Island Arts Gallery in Newport, Rhode Island. Sheila's life has not been without periods of darkness. Susan Fisher Sterling, the chief curator of the National Museum for Women in the Arts, wrote: ``In unpredictable and often dramatic ways, Sheila Isham has been challenged by forces that threatened to overwhelm her . . . yet, despite these upheavals, her spirited work prevails.'' After a fire destroyed many works in her Washington, DC, studio, Sheila said: ``I thought that the burnt studio looked like a painting, like a myth, something you might want to take the picture of. I had to come to terms with that. I became freer in a way.'' When her daughter Sandra contracted HIV/AIDS through a blood transfusion, Sheila began work on the enormous, five-painting Victoria series, which she calls ``at once a celebration and a working through the darkest period of my life.'' She said: ``It spans all human emotions from love to terror to hope and finally triumph and joy. It is an epic poem in paint, expressed in brilliant color and strong forms.'' The series was exhibited for the first time in its entirety by the National Museum of Women in the Arts in 2005, 9 years after Sandra passed away. Sheila Isham's work reflects the iconic melting pot of our Nation's history. Though she draws inspiration from places as diverse as postwar Berlin, Russia, China, Haiti, France, and New York City, her work remains clearly and vibrantly American. Her art, which resides all over the world, is itself an ambassador both for her creative vision and for her country. We are enriched by her talent and her acquaintance. Alexander Borovsky, head curator of contemporary art at the Russian State Museum, wrote this: As an artist, Isham is marked by an incredible restlessness. Even the calm of an ``oasis'' created by her own hand . . . is only relative. She continually explores new paths and returns to the old. Few artists--including Isham, I expect--can say precisely what they are seeking. Having mastered the art of return, Sheila Isham knows to whom it is that she returns--to herself. Truly a rare gift in contemporary art. I come to the Senate floor today to offer congratulations to Sheila on her 80th birthday. I trust this day will be an occasion for all of us to recognize her extraordinary contribution to American art, and anticipate the many achievements still to come.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Let me say one thing quickly, and we will come back to it, I believe, when amendments come forward. With respect to the question of how we deal with the litigation that presently involves certain telephone communications carriers, I think everybody in this Chamber should remember the impossible predicament in which those companies have been placed. There are litigants, private litigants in court, in an ongoing action, and the Government has come in and told them: You may not defend yourself. It has told them: You may not say one word in defense of this litigation. National security is asserted as the reason, and all of the threats that come with violations of national security are in play. So there they are, private litigants in private litigation, and the Government has stepped in and said: You may not defend yourself. I think we have to do something about that. Along with what the ranking member of the Judiciary said earlier, the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, I think the only decent thing we can expect the Government to do is to at least step in itself for these litigants. If they are going to tell the carriers they can't defend themselves in court in ongoing litigation, the least this Government should be able to do is to step in and say: We will step in and substitute ourselves for you. So I applaud what Senator Specter has done with his substitution bill, and I look forward to a discussion of that. I yield the remainder of my time, and I yield floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 15 minutes and that the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, be recognized next if no Member of the minority seeks recognition.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, both opinion pieces go on at some length about the importance of new legislation on foreign surveillance activities. They devote paragraph after paragraph to this issue. But the two leaders of America's law enforcement and intelligence communities completely ignore, never once mention, the issue that is actually in dispute; that is, on what terms will we allow this administration to spy on Americans? We all agree to unleash our intelligence agencies on foreign targets of foreign surveillance. There is no question there. The heart of the debate is the question of spying on Americans, one, when they are outside the country, or, two, when they are incidentally intercepted by surveillance targeted at someone else. This, the wiretapping of Americans, has been the entire subject of our work on surveillance. And yet Judge Mukasey and Admiral McConnell never once mentioned the topic. There are only two possibilities and each is regrettable. One is that these two gentlemen simply don't know what is going on, which seems unlikely since Director McConnell has participated in hearings on the subject, and we discussed in detail our concern about wiretapping Americans, and members of my staff are working through the details of the issue on a nearly daily basis with lawyers at the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice. So that leaves only one alternative that these two gentlemen do know what is going on and just chose to talk past the issue, ignore its very existence. That is a shame, and I hope it is not the early propaganda phase of a Bush administration effort to replicate the August stampede that got us into this pickle in the first place. Since they have not mentioned it, let me tell you what the problem is. The Protect America Act passed in the August stampede contains no statutory limitation on this administration's ability to spy on Americans traveling abroad whenever it wants, for whatever purpose. Let me repeat that. The Protect America Act contains no statutory restriction on this administration's ability to spy on Americans traveling abroad whenever it wants, for whatever purpose. The only limitation that now exists on that power is section 2.5 of Executive order No. 12333, which says the administration will not wiretap Americans overseas unless the Attorney General determines that person is an agent of a foreign power. The problem, as I noted in a speech in this Chamber recently, is a secret Bush administration Office of Legal Counsel memo related to surveillance activities which says this: An Executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new Executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous Executive order. Rather than violate an Executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it. In other words, the only thing standing between Americans traveling overseas and a Government wiretap is an Executive order that this President believes he is under no obligation to obey and may secretly disregard. The only thing standing between Americans traveling overseas and a Government wiretap is an Executive order this President believes he has no obligation to obey and may secretly disregard. So for months we have worked to repair the flawed bill of August, and the question of spying on Americans has been the issue--the issue--of concern. I and my staff, many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and their staffs have been working diligently and in good faith to solve this problem. What I have seen in these negotiations has been a thoughtful exchange by well-intentioned people who are committed to keeping America safe without trampling on the rights of Americans. We have talked not only with each other on both sides of the aisle but also with people in this administration, including staff attorneys at the DOJ and DNI. We have worked almost all the way toward making sure Americans who are incidentally intercepted enjoy full, meaningful minimization protections. I think we have worked all the way toward making sure a court order is required to wiretap an American who happens to be overseas. For both Director of National Intelligence McConnell and Attorney General Mukasey to write an op-ed as if the issue of spying on Americans abroad has no role in this debate, when it has been the key and central issue in this debate, is, frankly, disappointing. One wonders how big the elephant in the room has to be before they are willing to acknowledge it. Ignoring this problem may serve the Bush- Cheney interest in unaccountable executive power, but it does not protect Americans' privacy and it does not make Americans safer. I urge my colleagues to remember that the issue we have been grappling with is a simple one: On what terms will we allow this administration to spy on Americans? It is a question with real implications for our democracy, for our civil liberties, and ultimately for the security of this Nation. Unless we really believe that when Americans leave our country we leave our civil rights behind, unless we really believe this Government should have unfettered power to eavesdrop on conversations of families vacationing in Europe or soldiers serving in Iraq, then the authority to spy on Americans abroad cannot be left under the exclusive control of this administration. It is a matter that must be solved in this legislation that Congress must pass to restore the Protect America Act to a fair appreciation of civil liberties. That is why we have been working on this question so hard. It is a serious question. I wish the two gentlemen leading the key Departments of Government involved had recognized that it exists, and I urge my colleagues to insist on the protections we have worked so hard for--to protect Americans from surveillance in a way the intelligence community has come to support. We have come a long way. Chairman Rockefeller is owed our gratitude, as is Chairman Leahy. Their leadership in this has been spectacular. I also wish to express appreciation for the efforts of the distinguished ranking members, Senators Kit Bond and Arlen Specter. We are on the verge of a historic moment in the rights of Americans and in making sure that when they travel abroad it is clear that they take their rights with them. Let us not let this moment slip away. Madam President, how much time remains of my 15 minutes?

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, just recently, the Attorney General of the United States published an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times on our ongoing work to improve the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, what we call FISA. This follows closely on a similar opinion piece by the Director of National Intelligence, Admiral McConnell, in the New York Times. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record each of these documents.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, let me first say how moved I am to be on the Senate floor after the remarks of the very distinguished Senator from Hawaii commemorating this day. But I rise to discuss a different question, a question that involves the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. We will shortly consider making right the things that are wrong with the so-called Protect America Act, a second-rate piece of legislation passed in a stampede in August at the behest of the Bush administration. It is worth for a moment considering why making this right is so important. President Bush pressed this legislation not only to establish how our Government can spy on foreign agents but how his administration can spy on Americans. Make no mistake, the legislation we passed in August is significantly about spying on Americans--a business this administration should not be allowed to get into except under the closest supervision. We have a plain and tested device for keeping tabs on Americans. It is our Constitution. Our Constitution has as its most elemental provision the separation of governmental powers into three separate branches. When the Government feels it is necessary to spy on its own citizens, each branch has a role. The executive branch executes the laws and conducts surveillance. The legislative branch sets the boundaries that protect Americans from improper Government surveillance. The judicial branch oversees whether the Government has followed the Constitution and the laws that protect U.S. citizens from violations of their privacy and their civil rights. It sounds basic, but even an elementary understanding of this balance of powers eludes the Bush administration. So now we have to repair this flawed and shoddy Protect America Act. Why are we in Congress so concerned about this legislation? Why is it so vital that we energetically insert the role of Congress and the courts when the Bush administration seeks to determine the rules under which it will spy on Americans? Because look what the Bush administration does behind our backs when they think no one is looking. For years, under the Bush administration, the Office of Legal Counsel within the Department of Justice has issued highly classified, secret legal opinions related to surveillance. This is an administration that hates answering to an American court, that wants to grade its own exams, and OLC is the inside place the administration goes to get legal support for its spying program. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I was given access to those secret opinions and spent hours poring over them. Sitting in that secure room, as a lawyer, as a former U.S. attorney, legal counsel to Rhode Island's Governor, and State attorney general, I was increasingly dismayed and amazed as I read on. To give an example of what I read, I have gotten three legal propositions from these secret OLC opinions declassified. Here they are, as accurately as my note-taking could reproduce them from the classified documents. Listen for yourself, Mr. President; I will read all three and then discuss each one. One: An Executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new Executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous Executive order. Rather than violate an Executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it. No. 2: The President, exercising his constitutional authority under article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President's authority under article II. And 3: The Department of Justice is bound by the President's legal determinations. Let's start with No. 1. Bear in mind that the so-called Protect America Act that was stampeded through this great body in August provides no--zero--statutory protections for Americans traveling abroad from Government wiretapping--none if you are a businesswoman traveling on business overseas; none if you are a father taking the kids on vacation to the Caribbean; none if you are visiting your aunts or uncles in Italy or Ireland; none even if you are a soldier of the United States of America in uniform serving overseas. The Bush administration provided in that hastily passed law no statutory restrictions on their ability to wiretap you at will, to tap your cell phone, your e-mail--whatever--once you are outside the borders of the United States. The only restriction is an Executive order called 12333 which limits executive branch surveillance to Americans whom the Attorney General determines to be agents of a foreign power. That is what the Executive order says. But what does this administration say about Executive orders? An Executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new Executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous Executive order. Rather than violate an Executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it. ``Whenever [the President] wishes to depart from the terms of a previous Executive order,'' he may do so because ``an Executive order cannot limit a President.'' And he does not even have to change the Executive order or give notice that he is violating it because by ``depart[ing] from the Executive order,'' the President ``has instead modified or waived it.'' So unless Congress acts, here is what legally prevents this President from wiretapping Americans traveling abroad at will: nothing. Nothing. That was among the most egregious flaws in the bill passed during the August stampede orchestrated by the Bush administration, and this OLC opinion shows why we need to correct it. Here is No. 2: The President, exercising his constitutional authority under article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President's authority under article II. That is right, the President, according to the George W. Bush Office of Legal Counsel, has article II power to determine the scope of his article II power. Never mind a little decision called Marbury v. Madison written by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803 establishing the proposition that it is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Does this administration agree that it is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the President's authority is under article II of the Constitution? No. It is the President, according to this Office of Legal Counsel, who decides the limits of his own article II power. The question ``whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President's authority under article II'' is to be determined by the President's own minions ``exercising his constitutional authority under article II.'' It really makes one wonder: Where do they get these people? You have to be smart, you have to be really bright to get a job within the Office of Legal Counsel. How can people who are so smart be so misguided? And then it gets worse. Remember point 3: The Department of Justice is bound by the President's legal determinations. Let that sink in a minute. ``The Department of Justice is bound by the President's legal determinations.'' We are a nation of laws, not of men. This Nation was founded in rejection of the royalist principle that ``the king can do no wrong.'' Our Attorney General swears an oath to defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States. We are not some banana republic in which the officials all have to kowtow to a supreme leader. Imagine this in another context. Imagine a general counsel to a major U.S. corporation telling his board of directors: In this company, the counsel's office is bound by the legal determinations of the CEO. The board ought to throw that lawyer out. That is malpractice and probably even unethical. Wherever you are, if you are watching this, do me a favor: The next time you are in Washington, DC, take a taxi some evening to the U.S. Department of Justice. Stand outside. Look up at that building shining against the starry night. Look at the sign outside: The United States Department of Justice. Think of the heroes who have served there. Think of the battles fought. Think of the late nights, the brave decisions, the hard work of advancing and protecting our democracy that has been done in those halls. Think about how all that makes you feel. Then think about this statement: The Department of Justice is bound by the President's legal determinations. If you don't feel a difference from what you were feeling a moment ago, well, I guess congratulations because there is probably a job for you somewhere in the Bush administration. Consider the sad irony that this theory was crafted in that very building by the George W. Bush Office of Legal Counsel. In a nutshell, these three Bush administration legal propositions boil down to this: One, I don't have to follow my own rules, and if I break them, I don't have to tell you that I am breaking them; two, I get to determine what my own powers are; and three, the Department of Justice doesn't tell me what the law is, I tell the Department of Justice what the law is. When the Congress of the United States is willing to roll over for an unprincipled President, this is where you end up. We should not even be having this discussion, but here we are. I implore my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: Reject these feverish legal theories. I understand political loyalty; trust me, I do. But let's also be loyal to this great institution we serve in the legislative branch of Government. Let us also be loyal to the Constitution we took an oath to defend from enemies foreign and domestic. And let us be loyal to the American people who live each day under that Constitution's principles and protections. We simply cannot put the authority to wiretap Americans whenever they step outside America's boundaries under the exclusive control and supervision of the executive branch. We do not allow it when Americans are at home; we should not allow it when they travel abroad. The principles of congressional legislation and oversight and of judicial approval and review are simple and longstanding, and Americans deserve their protection wherever on God's green Earth they may travel. I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, and that I recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, it is with great reluctance that I plan to oppose the AMT bill before us. While I strongly support providing AMT relief to middle-class taxpayers, I simply cannot support an AMT patch that is not paid for. Let's be clear on what we are doing here today: we are voting on a bill that will require us to increase our deficit by $50 billion. Our children and grandchildren will have to pay back the funds we are borrowing today, with interest. There are many ways we could have been responsible and paid for this measure, but the President of the United States and the Republican Congress have refused to consider them. One option in a bill that I introduced would have paid for this AMT relief by increasing the taxes on investment profits for millionaires, many of whom enjoy an unjust tax benefit that allows them to pay a lower tax rate than struggling middle-class families. Under my proposal, a small number of taxpayers with incomes over $1 million per year could have funded a patch to benefit approximately 20 million Americans. The President of the United States and the Republicans in Congress believe that borrowing money from foreign nations, for our children to repay, is the best way to finance our government. I do not, and therefore I must oppose this measure.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 452, S. 1347.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, it is an unfortunate reality that with so much at stake in the ballot box, organized efforts to suppress the vote go nearly as far back as the right to vote itself. These efforts have cast a shadow over what Justice Earl Warren called ``the essence of a Democratic society'': the right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice. The first voter suppression in America was direct: blanket restrictions based on race, based on gender, based on class. Over the years, these overt efforts were eventually replaced by more indirect and nefarious means: poll taxes, literacy tests, Whites-only primaries, and myriad other disenfranchisement laws aimed directly at minority voters. These crafty legal obstacles were often supplemented by blunt physical violence. But despite the many and varied efforts to impede the franchise, American democracy has shown an extraordinary resilience--and the American people have shown an abiding dedication, sometimes paying with life and limb, to defend the right of their fellow citizens to vote. This Senate, of course, has a checkered past on voting rights. For many years, the Senate is where civil rights bills came to die, stalled by filibusters and tangled in parliamentary technique. Eventually, of course, the tide turned, and Congress ushered in a series of laws that remain among the most important ever enacted: the 24th amendment banning poll taxes; the Civil Rights Act; and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which banned literacy tests, authorized the Attorney General to appoint Federal voting examiners to ensure fair administration of elections, and required the Federal Government to ``pre-clear'' certain changes in the voting laws of local jurisdictions. That law has been improved and reauthorized a number of times--as recently as last year--and is a cornerstone of our democracy. Nevertheless, as we all know, efforts to suppress the vote persist and continue to erode the promise of democracy for many Americans. For example, in the last election cycle, we saw organized efforts to deceive voters by sending out fliers with false information about the location of polling places or with phony endorsements, we saw threats that immigrants could be imprisoned if they voted. The Judiciary Committee, under the wise leadership of Chairman Leahy, has responded with the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act, which would criminalize various forms of voter intimidation and election misinformation. In recent years, we have also seen the rise of another voter suppression tactic, which has come to be known as ``vote caging.'' Caging is a voter suppression tactic whereby a political campaign sends mail marked ``do not forward/return to sender'' to a targeted group of voters--often targeted into minority neighborhoods. The campaign then challenges the right of those citizens whose mail was returned as ``undeliverable'' on the grounds that the voter does not live at the registered address. Of course, as the Presiding Officer knows, there are many reasons why a piece of mail might be ``returned to sender'' that have nothing whatsoever to do with the voter's eligibility. For example, a voter might be an active member of the armed services and stationed far from home or a student lawfully registered at their parents' address. Even a typographical error during entry of the voter's registration information might result in a ``false negative.'' Nevertheless, these individuals end up facing a challenge to their vote and possibly losing their right to vote. Caging came into the media spotlight this summer during Congress's investigation into the political dismissal of U.S. attorneys, but this practice is not new, and it is not rare. In fact, since 1982, the Republican National Committee has been operating under a consent decree, filed in New Jersey U.S. District Court, which states that the RNC shall ``refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities.'' This consent decree was entered into after the Republican National Committee, during the 1981 New Jersey gubernatorial election, initiated a massive voter-caging operation, sending mailers marked ``do not forward'' to voters in predominantly African-American and Latino neighborhoods throughout the State. The Republican National Committee then compiled a caging list based solely on the returned letters and challenged these voters at the polls. They did it again in Louisiana, in 1986, when the Republican National Committee hired a consultant to send 350,000 pieces of mail marked ``do not forward'' to districts that were mostly African American, and the consent decree was then modified to require the U.S. District Court in New Jersey to preclear any so- called ballot security programs undertaken by the Republican National Committee. However, in part because the Federal consent decree does not apply to State parties or other campaigns, caging has continued. During the past few election cycles, there has been credible evidence of caging in Ohio, in Florida, in Pennsylvania, and elsewhere. Not every caging operation has been successful, but the failure of a voter suppression attempt is no excuse for it. Therefore, I am introducing the Caging Prohibition Act, which would prohibit challenging a person's eligibility to vote--or to register to vote--based on a caging list. Simply put, eligible voters should not fear their right to vote might be challenged at the polls because a single piece of mail never reached them. The bill would also require any private party who challenges the right of another citizen to vote--or to register to vote--to set forth in writing, under penalty of perjury, the specific grounds for the alleged ineligibility. The principle here is simple: If you are going to challenge one of your fellow citizen's right to vote, you should at least have cause and be willing to stand behind it. I am very proud of the extraordinary group of Senators who have agreed to be original cosponsors of this piece of legislation: Chairman Leahy of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Feinstein, Senator Dodd, Senator Kerry, Senator Feingold, Senator Schumer, Senator Nelson of Florida, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, Senator Menendez, Senator Brown, and Senator Klobuchar. I was proud to work closely with the Brennan Center for Social Justice and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law to develop the language of this bill. I would also like to thank People for the American Way for its support of this legislation. In the 1964 case of Reynolds v. Sims, the U.S. Supreme Court stated: [T]he right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired matter is preservative of other basic civil and political rights. . . . In other words, every right we have depends upon the right to vote. Organized voter-suppression efforts, including vote-caging schemes, infringe on this right and undermine our democracy. Congress should rise to the occasion and say ``enough is enough'' to vote caging. I thank my many distinguished colleagues who have cosponsored this bill, and I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in stopping this nefarious voter suppression activity. I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 15 minutes each.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, if there is no further business, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. Tuesday, November 6; that on Tuesday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period for the transaction of morning business for 60 minutes with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each and the time equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half; that at the close of morning business, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 2419; further, that on Tuesday, the Senate stand in recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. for the respective party conference meetings.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, it is an unfortunate reality that with so much at stake in the ballot box, organized efforts to suppress the vote go nearly as far back as the right to vote itself. These efforts have cast a shadow over what Justice Earl Warren called ``the essence of a Democratic society'': the right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice. The first voter suppression in America was direct: blanket restrictions based on race, based on gender, based on class. Over the years, these overt efforts were eventually replaced by more indirect and nefarious means: poll taxes, literacy tests, Whites-only primaries, and myriad other disenfranchisement laws aimed directly at minority voters. These crafty legal obstacles were often supplemented by blunt physical violence. But despite the many and varied efforts to impede the franchise, American democracy has shown an extraordinary resilience--and the American people have shown an abiding dedication, sometimes paying with life and limb, to defend the right of their fellow citizens to vote. This Senate, of course, has a checkered past on voting rights. For many years, the Senate is where civil rights bills came to die, stalled by filibusters and tangled in parliamentary technique. Eventually, of course, the tide turned, and Congress ushered in a series of laws that remain among the most important ever enacted: the 24th amendment banning poll taxes; the Civil Rights Act; and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which banned literacy tests, authorized the Attorney General to appoint Federal voting examiners to ensure fair administration of elections, and required the Federal Government to ``pre-clear'' certain changes in the voting laws of local jurisdictions. That law has been improved and reauthorized a number of times--as recently as last year--and is a cornerstone of our democracy. Nevertheless, as we all know, efforts to suppress the vote persist and continue to erode the promise of democracy for many Americans. For example, in the last election cycle, we saw organized efforts to deceive voters by sending out fliers with false information about the location of polling places or with phony endorsements, we saw threats that immigrants could be imprisoned if they voted. The Judiciary Committee, under the wise leadership of Chairman Leahy, has responded with the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act, which would criminalize various forms of voter intimidation and election misinformation. In recent years, we have also seen the rise of another voter suppression tactic, which has come to be known as ``vote caging.'' Caging is a voter suppression tactic whereby a political campaign sends mail marked ``do not forward/return to sender'' to a targeted group of voters--often targeted into minority neighborhoods. The campaign then challenges the right of those citizens whose mail was returned as ``undeliverable'' on the grounds that the voter does not live at the registered address. Of course, as the Presiding Officer knows, there are many reasons why a piece of mail might be ``returned to sender'' that have nothing whatsoever to do with the voter's eligibility. For example, a voter might be an active member of the armed services and stationed far from home or a student lawfully registered at their parents' address. Even a typographical error during entry of the voter's registration information might result in a ``false negative.'' Nevertheless, these individuals end up facing a challenge to their vote and possibly losing their right to vote. Caging came into the media spotlight this summer during Congress's investigation into the political dismissal of U.S. attorneys, but this practice is not new, and it is not rare. In fact, since 1982, the Republican National Committee has been operating under a consent decree, filed in New Jersey U.S. District Court, which states that the RNC shall ``refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities.'' This consent decree was entered into after the Republican National Committee, during the 1981 New Jersey gubernatorial election, initiated a massive voter-caging operation, sending mailers marked ``do not forward'' to voters in predominantly African-American and Latino neighborhoods throughout the State. The Republican National Committee then compiled a caging list based solely on the returned letters and challenged these voters at the polls. They did it again in Louisiana, in 1986, when the Republican National Committee hired a consultant to send 350,000 pieces of mail marked ``do not forward'' to districts that were mostly African American, and the consent decree was then modified to require the U.S. District Court in New Jersey to preclear any so- called ballot security programs undertaken by the Republican National Committee. However, in part because the Federal consent decree does not apply to State parties or other campaigns, caging has continued. During the past few election cycles, there has been credible evidence of caging in Ohio, in Florida, in Pennsylvania, and elsewhere. Not every caging operation has been successful, but the failure of a voter suppression attempt is no excuse for it. Therefore, I am introducing the Caging Prohibition Act, which would prohibit challenging a person's eligibility to vote--or to register to vote--based on a caging list. Simply put, eligible voters should not fear their right to vote might be challenged at the polls because a single piece of mail never reached them. The bill would also require any private party who challenges the right of another citizen to vote--or to register to vote--to set forth in writing, under penalty of perjury, the specific grounds for the alleged ineligibility. The principle here is simple: If you are going to challenge one of your fellow citizen's right to vote, you should at least have cause and be willing to stand behind it. I am very proud of the extraordinary group of Senators who have agreed to be original cosponsors of this piece of legislation: Chairman Leahy of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Feinstein, Senator Dodd, Senator Kerry, Senator Feingold, Senator Schumer, Senator Nelson of Florida, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, Senator Menendez, Senator Brown, and Senator Klobuchar. I was proud to work closely with the Brennan Center for Social Justice and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law to develop the language of this bill. I would also like to thank People for the American Way for its support of this legislation. In the 1964 case of Reynolds v. Sims, the U.S. Supreme Court stated: [T]he right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired matter is preservative of other basic civil and political rights. . . . In other words, every right we have depends upon the right to vote. Organized voter-suppression efforts, including vote-caging schemes, infringe on this right and undermine our democracy. Congress should rise to the occasion and say ``enough is enough'' to vote caging. I thank my many distinguished colleagues who have cosponsored this bill, and I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in stopping this nefarious voter suppression activity. I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, the Senate is now called upon to consider President Bush's nominee to succeed Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General of this Nation the person we must rely on to repair what has been left broken to uphold the rule of law where political loyalties once ruled and to lead the Department of Justice forward at a time of upheaval; and of urgency. In many ways, President Bush has made a fine appointment in Judge Michael Mukasey; far better than we have come to expect in this administration. He is not a political hack. He is not a partisan ideologue. He is not an incompetent crony. We have had our share of those. No, he is a brilliant lawyer, a distinguished jurist, and by all accounts a good man. And no one feels more keenly than do I the need for repair and recovery of the Department of Justice. In a small way, I served this Department, as a U.S. Attorney, and I feel how important this great institution is to our country; and how important an Attorney General-- such as Judge Mukasey could be--is to this great institution. I wish it were so easy. But there are times in history that rear up, and become a swivel point on which our direction as a Nation can turn. The discussion of torture in recent days has made this such a point. Suddenly, even unexpectedly, this time has come. It calls us to think--What is it that makes this country great? Whence cometh our strength? First, of course, is a strong economy, to pay for military and foreign aid activities; to attract the best and the brightest from around the world to our land, and to reward hard work and invention, boldness and innovation. Now is not the time to discuss how we have traded away our heartland jobs, how our education system is failing in international competition, how a broken health care system drags us down, how an unfunded trillion dollar war and the borrowing to pay for it compromise our strength. For now, let me just recognize that a strong economy is necessary to our strength. But a strong economy is only necessary, not sufficient. Ultimately, America is an ideal. America for centuries has been called a ``shining city on a hill.'' We are a lamp to other nations. A great Senator on this floor said ``America is not a land, it's a promise.'' Torture breaks that promise; extinguishes that lamp; darkens that city. When Judge Mukasey came before the Judiciary Committee, he was asked about torture and about one particular practice which has its roots in the Spanish Inquisition. Waterboarding involves strapping somebody in a reclining position, heels above head, putting a cloth over their face and pouring water over the cloth to create the feeling of drowning. As Senator John McCain, who spent years in a prison camp in North Vietnam, has said, ``It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture.'' The Judge Advocates General of the United States Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines have agreed that the use of simulated drowning would violate U.S. law and the laws of war. Several Judge Advocates General told Congress that waterboarding would specifically constitute torture under the Federal Anti-Torture Statute, making it a felony offense. Judge Mukasey himself acknowledged that ``these techniques seem over the line or, on a personal basis, repugnant to me.'' He noted that waterboarding would be in violation of the Army Field Manual. But in our hearing last week, asked specifically whether the practice of waterboarding is constitutional, he would say no more than: ``if it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional,'' and since then he has failed to recognize that waterboarding is clearly a form of torture, is unconstitutional, and is unconditionally wrong. There are practical faults when America tortures. It breaks the Golden Rule--do unto others as you would have them do unto you, enshrined in the Army Field Manual with the question, if it were done to your men, would you consider it abuse? There are practical concerns over whether torture actually works, whether it is sound, professional interrogation practice. I am not an expert, but experts seem to say it is not. But the more important question is the one I asked earlier--whence cometh our strength as a nation? Our strength comes from the fact that we stand for something. Our strength comes from the aspirations of millions around the globe who want to be like us, who want their country to be like ours. Our strength comes when we embody the hopes and dreams of mankind. September 11 was a terrible catastrophe that rocked our Nation to its core. But tens of thousands of Americans, nearly 30,000 men, died in the Argonne Forest, and we did not lose our character as a nation. Are we not as strong now as then? September 11 was a terrible catastrophe that challenged our economy, our politics, and our way of life. But Japan withstood two nuclear explosions, and it is today an economically and culturally vibrant country. Are we not made of stuff as strong as they? September 11 was a terrible catastrophe, and it lives on as a test for our Nation. But the real catastrophe would be if we sell our birthright for a mess of pottage, if we sell our destiny as a lamp to other nations and a beacon to a suffering world, for bits of coerced intelligence. I don't think anyone intended this nomination to turn on this issue. So many of us saw with relief an end to the ordeal of the Department of Justice, and wished this nomination to succeed. But for whatever reason, this moment has appeared, unbidden, as a moment of decision on who we are and what we are as a nation. What path will we follow? Will we continue America's constant steady path toward the light? Will we trust in our ideals? Will we recognize the strength that comes when men and women rise in villages and hamlets and barrios around the world and say, that is what I want my country to be like; that is the world I choose, and turn their faces toward our light? Or, to borrow from Churchill, will we head down ``the stairway which leads to a dark gulf. It is a fine broad stairway at the beginning, but after a bit the carpet ends. A little farther on there are only flagstones, and a little farther on still these break beneath your feet''? Will we join that gloomy historical line leading from the Inquisition, through the prisons of tyrant regimes, through gulags and dark cells, and through Saddam Hussein's torture chambers? Will that be the path we choose? I hope not. I am torn--deeply torn between this man and this moment. This is a good man, I believe. But this moment can help turn us back toward the light, and away from that dark and descending stairway. If this moment can awaken us to the strength of our ideals and principles, then, with whatever strength I have, I feel it is my duty to put my shoulder to this moment, and with whatever strength God has given me, to push toward the light. One might argue that this makes Mr. Mukasey an innocent victim in a clash between Congress and the President--that no nominee for Attorney General will be able to satisfy Congress or the American people on the question of torture, because the President or perhaps the Vice President will not allow any nominee to draw that bright line at what we all know in our hearts and minds to be abhorrent to our Constitution and our values. That is exactly the point. If we allow the President of the United States to prevent, to forbid, a would-be Attorney General of the United States--the most highly visible representative of our rule of law--from recognizing that bright line, we will have turned down that dark stairway. I cannot stand for that. I will oppose this nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, may I speak for 12 minutes as in morning business?

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate made a strong and long-overdue investment in the future of public transit in Rhode Island and throughout the country. I am pleased to have cast my vote for the passage of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2007 (PRIIA), which will guide the maintenance, growth, and funding of the railroad through Fiscal Year 2012. Each year, over 12 million business and leisure travelers depend on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor service, which connects the great cities of New England and the Mid-Atlantic states. Providence is a vital link on this route, with more than half a million Amtrak passengers boarding and departing Amtrak trains in the city each year. Also on the Northeast corridor route are Kingston and Westerly, Rhode Island. Kingston is home to the University of Rhode Island, and Amtrak gives students, faculty, researchers, and visitors direct access to this thriving college town. The Westerly station provides rail service to residents of both Rhode Island and Connecticut who rely on public transportation. Despite its importance to millions of travelers, the Northeast Corridor has fallen into a state of disrepair in recent years. The infrastructure on this route is some of the oldest in the Nation, and a revitalization plan has been necessary for some time. This new Amtrak bill includes a strategy to restore the route to good condition by September of 2012--the first capital development plan put in place since Amtrak's previous authorization expired 5 years ago--and authorizes full federal funding of necessary repairs and upgrades. The Amtrak bill also authorizes the formation of a commission to oversee the operation and maintenance of the Northeast Corridor. The commission will include Amtrak, the Federal Railroad Administration, and each state along the route. I am pleased that Rhode Island will have a voice in future planning for a resource so vital to us. In addition to funding operations and capital improvements, the Amtrak bill also addresses the congestion experienced on so many of the system's routes. By law, Amtrak passenger trains have the right of way over private freight trains, but this preference is often ignored. The bill the Senate passed today permits the Surface Transportation Board to assess fines against non-compliant freight railroads and to distribute damages to Amtrak. Congestion has increased in recent years, especially along the Northeast Corridor, and this provision should lead to fewer and shorter delays for passengers. Finally, let us celebrate a piece of good Rhode Island news--I have been informed that the escalators in the Providence train station, which have been broken and covered with dust since early 2005, are scheduled to be reopened and in service by the week of November 12. I congratulate Senators Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Trent Lott of Mississippi on the passage of this critical piece of legislation. I also want to recognize the contributions of Rhode Island's own Senator Jack Reed, who has been a strong and constant advocate for Amtrak. The new resources and clear development plan outlined in this bill reaffirm Congress's commitment to passenger rail service in the United States.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 12 to 15 minutes in morning business.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, as my colleagues know, earlier this week President Bush announced he will ask this Congress to provide an additional $46 billion for the war in Iraq next year. That is $46 billion more than the $150 billion he already told us he would ask for. Taken together, that is close to $200 billion more than the hundreds of billions of dollars the taxpayers of this country have already poured into the sands and marshes of Iraq--for a war this President has made clear he has no intention of ending. The people of Rhode Island are tired of watching their sons and daughters, their neighbors and their friends, sent off to war by a President who won't trouble himself to make a plan to bring them home. They are tired of spending money our country has to borrow on a war with burdens our country should no longer have to bear. And they are sick and tired of hearing this President veto or threaten to veto legislation passed by this Congress that supports the real and urgent needs of Americans and their families--all because he says it costs too much. Clearly, this President is an expert when it comes to irresponsible and excessive spending. Look at the war. Look at the private contractors. Look at the national debt he has run up. But how can he keep a straight face and tell the American people it is more important to borrow and spend $35 billion for 3\1/2\ more months of the Iraq war than it is to provide budgeted health insurance for 5 years to 10 million American children? What a sobering revelation of this administration's misplaced priorities. No American should doubt for 1 minute what is going on here. Every time President Bush vetoes a bill to fund children's health care, every time he threatens to veto legislation that will send our Nation's children to college, keep families warm during the winter months, invest in job training and technical education programs, or offer the promise of medical cures through research at the National Institutes of Health, President Bush is making a choice. He is choosing prolonging a war in Iraq over battling cancer. He is choosing his no-plan war over helping families in poverty. It is a choice, and it is the wrong choice. Last night, the Senate passed a bill to provide funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and other agencies. On October 17, the administration expressed its opposition to this appropriations bill based on what it calls ``an irresponsible and excessive level of spending.'' As I said, this President is certainly expert at irresponsible and excessive levels of spending, but what does he mean? The President means that $10.8 billion spent to help millions of Americans lead healthier, more productive lives is irresponsible and excessive, but the nearly $200 billion additional he wants to borrow and spend on the war in Iraq is just fine. Let's look at two areas in this bill where the funding levels we propose exceed those in the administration's budget to see just how irresponsible and excessive we are. The first is at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute at NIH. Our bill funds the institute at $67 million more than the President's request. I want to introduce my colleagues to one man who does not think this increase is irresponsible and excessive. This is a picture of Richard Pezzillo on his last visit to Washington, DC. Rich is a bright, kind, thoughtful young man from North Providence, RI, who hopes one day to become a meteorologist. Rich also suffers from hemophilia and right now lies in a hospital bed in Rhode Island, too sick to attend his classes at Western Connecticut State University where he hopes to graduate this May. Sadly, Rich, now 24, has missed 2\1/2\ years of school due to his illness. One of these absences was caused by an activity most of us would never even think about--something we do, in fact, to save lives-- putting on a seatbelt. Three years ago, Rich unfastened his seatbelt from the airplane, collected his things, and walked off into the airport and suddenly started to feel tremendous pain. He started vomiting blood. Simply wearing his seatbelt had caused Rich to bleed internally, inside of his stomach, eventually requiring that his gall bladder be removed. Rich spent roughly 3 weeks in the hospital, accumulating bills totaling nearly $1.5 million. Luckily, Blue Cross- Blue Shield of Rhode Island, his family's insurer, covered most of these costs. But Rich is desperately afraid what will happen to him when he graduates from college and no longer qualifies under his parents' health care plan. Hemophilia is one of the most expensive conditions a person can have, one that few insurance companies will want to take on. Richard Pezzillo is a fighter. He is an example for us all. But he will continue to face tremendous difficulties with his health throughout his life. Soon, thanks to research going on at the National Institutes of Health; specifically at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, hemophilia could be the first disease cured by gene therapy. The funding in this appropriations bill will go toward research which could save Richard's life and the lives of 18,000 people across this country who suffer from hemophilia. This spending is not irresponsible. This spending is not excessive. This spending is vital and it is working and it has the potential to save thousands of people like Rich Pezzillo. A second place where this bill calls for spending above the President's budget--$128 million above his budget to be exact--is at the National Cancer Institute. Here I want to share the story of Benjamin Haight. I met Ben's parents this summer when they came down to my office from Warwick, RI, to share their little boy's story. Ben was diagnosed with neuroblastoma early in 1999 when he was just 4\1/2\ years old. At the time, Ben's dad was a senior chief in the Navy, serving aboard the USS Miami. He was airlifted off the submarine to join his son, as Ben underwent five rounds of chemo, surgery, radiation, and endured two stem cell transplants. These treatments left Ben with no high frequency hearing, requiring him to wear the two hearing aids, and they left him with a severely compromised immune system. But Ben refused to let any of this keep him from being a kid. He told his doctors there would be no treatments during science class, and that they would have to be out by 3 to go to Cub Scouts or baseball or soccer or other activities. He often left his chemotherapy sessions dressed in his Little League uniform. Ben was a snorkler, a sailor, a swimmer, a fisherman, a climber, an artist, and an animal lover. He was, as his parents say, a child first and a child with cancer second. Though Ben and his family enjoyed 2 years of remission, he relapsed again in October 2001 at the start of second grade. This new round of treatment consisted of more chemo and over 200 blood and platelet transfusions. Ben lost his battle with neuroblastoma on August 8, 2003, at the age of 9. The night before he died, Ben turned to his mom and asked: ``Can't we try a stronger medicine?'' Well, Ben, at the pediatric oncology branch of the National Cancer Institute, they are trying to create that stronger medicine. Ten phase I and four phase II clinical trials are currently being conducted on neuroblastoma, and scientists are closer and closer every day to the stronger medicine you asked for. Is it really so irresponsible and excessive to provide the funding for these studies, to find the treatments that could have saved Ben Haight and could save so many more children like him? To me, irresponsible and excessive is borrowing and spending $450 billion for an endless war that undermines our national security and then asking the Congress for another $196.4 billion without a plan to bring our troops home, all while nearly 50 million Americans go without health insurance and millions of families hover at the door of poverty. We should be clear that the nearly $200 billion this President has requested for the war in Iraq, on top of the hundreds of billions he has already spent, is not even the whole story. When this administration tells us about the financial costs of this disastrous war, they don't tell us about the interest payments we will have to pay. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that interest on the war will total $415 billion by 2017, and then there will be more interest on the additional $200 billion the President wants us to borrow and spend. The final interest costs of this war could approach $1 trillion, passed on to our children and grandchildren. President Bush, I think most Americans would argue with you. I think most Americans would argue that $22 billion to keep our families healthy is a pretty sound investment in our country's future, and trillions of dollars in spending and hundreds of billions of dollars in interest for a war you won't take action to end, that is what is irresponsible and excessive. The President's threatened veto of this appropriations bill is just another illustration of his extraordinarily misplaced priorities. The $67 million increase this bill calls for to fund the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute is a few hours of the cost of the war in Iraq--not even a full day, not even half a day, a few hours. In fact, the entire NIH budget in this bill is only $1 billion above the President's request. One billion dollars sounds like a lot of money, of course, but it is, in fact, only a few days of the war in Iraq--not a month, not a week, only a few days. President Bush would rather prolong the war in Iraq than fund additional research at the National Institutes of Health into pediatric cancer, into hemophilia, and into other diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, multiple sclerosis, autism, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's. He would rather fund a continuous war than provide hope for millions of families around this country. Well, I hope President Bush will listen to Rich Pezzillo's story. I hope he will listen to Ben Haight's parents. I hope he will listen to the thousands of Rhode Islanders who have reached out to me to demand a new direction, not only in Iraq but here at home in America. I hope he will listen to Americans across this country who think that people such as Rich and Ben should be our first priorities. I am proud this bill puts people such as Rich and Ben ahead of the extreme rightwing ideologies and reckless wars this President pursues, and I hope we in Congress will stand our ground when, of all people, this President charges that putting Rich and Ben first is irresponsible and excessive. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.