center will come to order today's opening prayer will be offered by guest chaplain dr layton mo's a first presbyterian church just only a north carolina let us pray gracious god  creator of life in the sustainer of all things including political playings we bow before you this day in humility and with thankful hearts to acknowledge that our lives our gift of your grace renewed every morning and nurtured every day in your tender care we begin this time together by acknowledging our faith in you and our dependence upon you we begin by saying that our religious faith and commitment do influence our opinions and convictions our daily and political life so help us never to lot our politics or our religion become dirty  but help us to keep the moral intricately related to the political and give us the wisdom and courage to stand for the hard right against the easy wrong strengthen and encourage each of these senators today we pray and guide and protect our beloved nation particularly in these ethically difficult times make justice prevail and leadership based on integrity be the dominant no keep us all faithful to the opportunities and challenges this day will bring and make us a blessing to all those our lives will touch to their dad and  please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flight  twenty then will proceed to executive session to consider the nomination brandy smith u s circuit court judge marcio morales howard the united states district judge debate on these nominations limited total of ten minutes equally divided in control between the chairman ranking member the judicial committee's committee ten thirty seven will proceed to vote on confirmation of these two nominations i now like to indicate to members that a third roll call vote is likely shortly after these votes we have we will in just a short time approve the first circuit court judge of this congress i will say that the distinguished republican leader and i have had conversations about having as little acrimony in fact hopefully none on circuit court judges of the last congress we will be noted for a number of things one will be the contentiousness of the circuit court judges that came before the senate and i have made a commitment to my friend from kentucky that will move forward on these we've had conversations with the president and he's going to do his best to send a circuit court judges that are not  people who cause a lot of heartburn on this side and still we think that's totally possible in keeping with the standards that president bush wants for the circuit court judges so this is a time when we're going to try to work together to move forward randi smith is first and i say to everyone here it was an easy to get him here he's been nominated one position another position that was low hold up to being made to be in with what we've been able to work through this is we want to do we very best to make sure this is not our last the circuit court judge but the first of us significant number of the blame we at least meet meet the standards of congress and similarly situat republican leader let me echo the remarks of my good friend the majority leader about the circuit call judge situation we're off to a good start i want to thank him and i want to thank chairman leahy for moving the randy smith nomination to the ninth circuit as the majority leader's indicated that vote o b at ten thirty we've had very good conversations the majority leader myself about restoring comedy to the senate on the business  fairly dealing with the president's nominations for circuit court judge ships the president has met the senate halfway some would say more than halfway by his actions here at the beginning of the congress a the people that he has chosen to resubmit for our consideration of the president's efforts have been recognized and a lot about the washington post law sad and joyous times and several other publications these papers have noted that the burden is now on the senate to reciprocate and treat the president's nominees fairly and we're off to a good start in doing just that moving the smith nomination today as an act of good faith on the part of the majority leader and generally he which i know there's on this side of the aisle appreciate it's a good beginning of course it's only a beginning but it's a good beginning as i've said the president should be treated as fairly as his three immediate predecessors each of whom  finished their terms with the senate in control of the opposition party yet those presidents receive an average of seventeen circuit court nominations confirmed this president is not treated as fairly as his predecessors then of course the comedy and cooperation in the senate might be harder to come by but there's no indication that that will be the case and i'm not predicting in fact i'm optimistic that we're going to be able to move through these nominations with a previous order the leadership time is reserved under the previous order there will now be a period for transaction of morning business until ten twenty a m the sender's permitted to speak there in the time equally divided between the two leaders or their design sent a letter to both leaders yesterday expressing disappointment and disapproval about the failure of this institution to address the most consequential issue of our time  monumental question and so therefore the brass and i have said that we should have a vote on the motion to adjourn for this particular recess because we object  without the senate having any agreement any understanding any debate any both on this most profound question it does no honor to the senate or to this country as i said early in the week when i expressed my disappointment that we have yet to construct an agreement on how to even move forward  to debate a non binding resolution irrespective of where my colleagues may seem and on this question whether you are in the majority or in the minority various viewpoints are to be able to expressed and we ought to be able to have votes in the united states senate and unfortunately regrettably that has not occurred at a time in which the president has already indicated you know that his plan for the troop surge is already underway there is a majority the united states senate is in opposition to the troop surge and to that specific mission others have different viewpoints on the question irrespective we know that there are a majority united states and their opposition to the troops there is the senator from nebraska and i in fact moved across the political aisle and joined the senator from delaware the center for michigan and the resolution on january seventeenth which was introduced to the united states senate and here we are today a month later and there's been no consequential action on the question of iraq representatives is debating and will be voting as i said on monday you know watches are on the front lines the united states senate is on the sidelines while the u s has represented is debating and hex press our views here on war the senate and to have those votes this is a critical moment in our nation as the senate has lost its sense of the place that now occupies o recess without having a plan on how we're going to proceed on this question without any both on the major issue of our time so what has changed in the last three days  negotiations it's been no consensus there's been no agreement there has been no understanding of how we're going to proceed it was in a debate this question and we're going to recess while the troop surge fact that i examine the track record and concluded we should not commit any more troops to instilling a peace that iraqis are unwilling to instill for themselves and for their own nation they're fighting amongst themselves rather than for themselves yesterday i had i spoke with the father of a soldier who died last of hording our operation iraqi freedom last friday staff sergeant eric ross of maine state in texas and two of his brothers in arms were killed as a entered a booby trapped building in the coble a booby trapped building and what was even more tragic is the iraqi squad that was with them that was accompanying them who was supposed to go in with them and berth refused to go in refused to go in but what did they know why did they refuse to go in where were their allegiances who were they fighting for those are the kinds of circumstances and situations that our troops are being subjected to and will be infinitely more of those example given the mission the president has proposed in baghdad the father of this soldier told me of you know he said my son's first interpreter was a spy was a spy i mean those are the kinds of the carries a dangerous circumstances stances on the which are soldiers of facing extraordinary challenges and now they'll be requested to go door to door in baghdad as this soldier was doing in baquba and as i was that they were going  out only to find they're coming back in again and that's a circumstance that our troops will face in a very dangerous mission in baghdad so while we're on recess all of this will be underway and yet we have no plan to debate in to vote on our respective views and positions on this question representatives or in the united states senate so i am deeply disappointed that we are as this juncture that we are playing to adjourn for a previously schedule recess without having established a record on behalf of the united states senate the people of this country we are their voice we are their voice we reflect their will we should have the opportunity to debate and to vote on the various question and the fact is we've allowed the gears of this deliberative process become jans of the monkey wrenches of timidity and partisanship and i regret that because at a time in which the american people are deeply concerned about the direction of our mission in iraq the irrespective of where you stand on the question i would hope that you express your disappointment in disapproval that we will recess without having taken  from maine i care about her allies she's a good legislator and a very strong woman strong person someone who stands up for what she thinks is right and i admire her for that say with all due respect mr present she's coming late to the party last week when senators had the opportunity to hold an important debate about iraq she and others chose to prevent that debate some of them including my friend from maine voted against their own resolution by not invoking cloture while it's heartening to know that they'd like to have a rack debate now where were they last week mr president where were they when the senate was trying to send a minute message to president bush stop the escalation or are they when we were trying to send a message and standing up for our troops in iraq the answer obstructing playing politics don't tell me about politics they were putting the political needs of the white house and our troops need for a new direction in iraq if not for the actions that took place last week we could have been finished with this debate regarding the escalation in iraq we could have already sent a message a strong message to president bush that he stands alone in supporting escalation we could have joined the house in expressing our support for the troops and our opposition to the so called surge but because there was a political game being played with the war american people still not know do not know where their senators stand on escalation i take it from comments i've heard not only from my senator the senator from maine from others on the other side of the aisle that number may have to have had a change of heart mr president but in future i would hope then many i'm will be joining us and in port in iraq debate and mr president everyone within the sound of my voice should understand we're in the united states senate percy generally is very very difficult many times to get from here to there have the house resolution before us as president i would hope we're going to have that opportunity soon this week the house of representatives is debating debating a bipartisan resolution escalation and last night as i've  indicated my start of the process again moving one step further bring a resolution the senate floor is a straightforward legislation saying simply we support our troops we have we oppose escalation in the senate returns out the press daybreak will deal with the house pass resolution in some manner the american people deserve as i've said you know where every member of congress stands on the so called surge important issue facing our country and this president i repeat what i said about senator from maine i care about her a lot but i really am somewhat lost in the logic of her debate publicly to misread into using some of my leisure time let me just respond briefly to my good friend the majority leader as senate republicans are fully prepared to have a debate on iraq war we were fair to have a debate on  war last week anticipated that the issue is whether the senate is going to operate like a house it will not in the house they have one iraq resolution minority  gets no voice at all up or down on one proposal as my good friend a majority leader and certainly the majority whip said repeatedly over the years the senate is not the how the senate republicans are anxious to have the iraq debate or not trying to avoid it in any way whatsoever about there will be at the very least a proposal that a majority senate republicans support could be considered so that we will have an alternative now to majority leader and i've had a number of discussions about this issue over the week i'm still hopeful that we can work this out and have a process for going forward that is fair to senate republicans but i'm very confident that senate republicans will insist on having at least one alternative favored by our majority of our members again i'm not anticipating that we're going to end up in the same position we were last week the majority leader in our continued talk about it fundamental fairness is an essential on the most important issue confronting the senator from pennsylvania mr president we have to vote scheduled at ten thirty and we're supposed to have fifteen minutes reserved for senator leahy and myself but i know that senator hagel has all the floor and wants a little time he says a minute but with the majority leader in attendance i wonder if we might adjust the timing so that we can talk about these judges at least for a few minutes i would say to my friend in the questions and i question we have as you know a funeral taking place today for dr norman and we change the vote around from eleven till ten thirty today so a large contingent of senators and house the united states senator who has been here or more concise on this administration's positions on iraq then the senior senator from nebraska to suggest that some on this side are impeding or trying to protect the bush administration's policy on iraq specifically escalating our military involvement in iraq is a bit off the  mark the fact is the minority leader is very clear in his purpose and i have supported that in that minority rights are the essence the foundation of this body the minority should have an opportunity to present their resolution or resolutions it should not be dictated to by the majority but make it very clear that those of us on this side who have pushed for this debate are very clear in our position and i doubt if there is anyone who has been clearer than this united states senator thank you now you will the floor mr president there is only a minute left before ten thirty lot of the time to discuss what i would ask unanimous consent at the end of the third for ten minutes will now report the nominations nomination norman randy smith of idaho to the united states circuit judge for the ninth circuit marcio morality howard of florida to the united states district j mr pryor mr reed of rhode island mr reid of nevada mr kennedy  and i absolute she would have mr president this senator from florida mr president with two senators from florida i rise to lend our support to judge howard who is a magistrate judge now center from florida mister president let's have ordered the senate is out of order could senators please take their conversations off the floor sen for federal district judge judge howard a magistrate judge is a graduate of vanderbilt and the university of florida law school but what i wanted to make reference to is a note that i received from judge howard telling a bit about something unusual because her parents arrived here from cuba and this is what she writes my parents arrived here with very little other than an education and a willingness to work their success and my nomination are truly a testament to the opportunity that exists here simply by virtue of being an american my parents never let my brother my sister or me forget how fortunate we were to be in a country where we could be whatever we wanted to be or or that we had a duty to give back to our country that the kind of person that's going to be a successful federal district judge sanders time expired senator from florida as president i am delighted jaafari i'm sorry senator will the senate please be  order the senators please take their conversations off the floor senator from florida president why did you join my colleague senator nelson and vance in the nomination of marsha morales howard as a federal district court judge for the middle district of florida this outstanding woman lawyer from florida i have not only got a distinguished academic background i graduated from university of florida college of law and being an editor of the law review there but she also has been an accomplished litigator for thirteen years with two very fine law firms in the state of florida folio lardner and mcguire woods but in two thousand and three she became a federal magistrate and as a magistrate she has distinguished herself as a magistrate in the middle district of florida where she would be serving as a federal district court judge i know her and i know her family and i know what an outstanding american she is and i'm very proud that with the magnitude of what is a federal appointment for a lifetime that we have someone of this competence this dedication and this quality to serve in this very important post so i'm delighted not only for the opportunity to advance his nomination but also to tout the judicial nominating commission that senator nelson and i have formed the state of florida which i frankly believe is a model of bipartisan cooperation but also seeking the best the most qualified on the merits by advancing a group by positioning the nomination before a group of distinguished lawyers who then see the applicants study their qualifications and make recommendations  so i could have the attention of my for fifty seconds the senate continues not to be in order that senators please take their conversations on the floor we only have one minute before the vote from the university of florida college of law she has an outstanding professional record and i urge my colleagues to support her but i yield back the balance of twenty seconds mr alexander this is clinton mr cochran mr martinez murkowski senator please come to order please take your conversations to the back mr schumer mr sessions mr sununu mr tester mr thomas mr sessions  if not if not on this votes vote the ayes are ninety three the nays are zero the nomination is confirmed under the previous order the motions to reconsider as far as i was present subject matter this is interesting i have mr president you have a consent request i'm going to is recognized yes thank you very very much mr as i would ask you on the other members be patient and i'm having a little script prepared for me to read i will i will propound that as present would you notify the president that the announced the present would be notified us for the passage of the judge vote under the previous order the motions to reconsider considered made and laid on the table in the president shall be immediately sixty three house rock resolution at the b twelve hours of debate that that debate be divided equally between the two leaders that no amendments or motions be in order and that the senate vote on passage of the concurrent resolution at the conclusion majority whip have said on numerous occasions in the last couple of years the senate is not the how the senate republicans are going to insist on fair treatment on the most important issue on the minds of the american people today and that is the war in iraq the senate simply cannot and i've heard senator byrd make these points on numerous occasions i cannot operate this way the senate republicans insist on one or more amendments on the most important issue confronting our country the war in iraq now what i had hoped was at the distinguished majority leader and myself would be able to work out a consent agreement that would allow us to have a would pick his amendment and it's apparent that they had met they majority would like to have  s the house passed a concurrent resolution and then it would be an alternative at least one alternative many of my members would like to have more than one alternative in this extremely important debate but at least that when we get to the matter dealing with nine eleven and lamenting those recommendations that would be a vehicle that will be open to debate and amendment now this president be unanimous consent that i propounded would complete work on the iraq surge issue within a matter of hours as i indicated so that we could move within a day one day to nine eleven and amendments warner grey mccain whatever amendments that the minority wanted offer they would be certainly permitted to do that we find ourselves in a very unusual position here mr president we tried to proceed to this matter before we've made everyone has heard the arguments used to stop us from going forward on this closure was not involved we need not go over all the reasons some of which have been outlined by the distinguished republican leader just a few minutes ago but there have been those on the other side of the aisle that thinks we should be in next week on this present speaking for this center i again next week want to be on next week we can do that i have things in nevada and i've want to do for a while because i've been here for five weeks but that's ok i can take care of that as everyone else can if necessary but we find ourselves  the same position that there is a hesitation on behalf of the minority to go forward on now a very simple matter very simple matter the warner levin amendment was a little more complicated than the simple house measure which says we support the troops more against surge that's what we should be disposed of quickly we can move to nine eleven all the debates on the other things people want to do with iraq and other things certainly they can do that we could spend considerable time on that long as there was progress being made there would be no reason to file cloture we have other things we need to do following we can during this work period but mr president we're we're anxious to go forward on th we have again been stopped from doing that so all the all the plaintive cries about not being able to debate iraq there were opportunities to debate iraq and they were turned down and i am disappointed as i said earlier now it's my understanding the spread the order is that senator leahy has one hour is that right now senator from pennsylvania to be recognized first for ten minutes and  december were saying a sarge might be a good idea and now they're saying the the only resolution we should have before the senate is one condemning the s that's not the way the senate works so i would like to propose a unanimous consent agreement mr president i ask you not assent on tuesday february the twenty seventh at a time determined by the majority later after consultation with the republican leader divided between the two leaders are there designates provided further that no amendments be in order to any of those measures further that the user yielding back upon the senator say to four consecutive votes on the adoption of the concurrent resolutions in the following order with no further water resolution the house resolution mccain lieberman graham benchmarks finally i ask and sent that any resolution that does not receive sixty votes in the affirmative vote on the adoption of a vitiated and a concurrent resolution be returned to its previous status that the the request be modified to be amendments that would be in order would be the house measure we refer to that is the favor supporting the troops were against the a system majority leader is recognized as president the senate has heard the song before we heard two weeks ago and then we listened as seven or eight members on the other sides have come to the floor repeatedly day after day they have sent letters to hell press conferences saying that they earn asli want to move forward on the debate on this issue though they voted against it though they voted against the motion for cloture that would have brought us to the bait on the issue and it's on their own legislation we offered them two republican amendments the warner amendment and the mccain amendment one opposing the surge one supporting the surge they would accept it and when they and when they did not accept this a motion for cloture was filed on a motion to proceed and they voted against it and they've come back sent saying they want the opportunity to debate they can't have it both ways you can't vote again you are regular order is called for order the senator from pennsylvania is to be recognized for ten minutes president senator from pennsylvania president i have requested ten minutes to speak on the judges but i want to use a few moments here to talk about what is  have just seen the senate for the better part of an hour with a majority of the united states senators on the floor demonstrate the gridlock and paralysis  i have an observation to make perhaps it would be an admonition or even a warning that the united states senate is about to become irrelevant we have all the other side of the rotunda of the house of representatives taking up the issue of iraq which all members with the speeches just made agree is the most pressing issue right under rule twenty two to feel free and it precludes any action by the republicans unless we republicans exercise our correctly that the majority leader has the right think it's time we change the rules we're not going to change the rule now but i do believe that the senate is in real danger of becoming irrelevant i don't think we ought to be dominant over the house of anarky we have been the debating the debate all week now the house has rules which we would watch where the rules committee goes off and comes back and limits what the house of representatives c do sometimes that's a despotism and between anarchy and despotism that's a fairly tough choice about right now i'm finding it difficult really impossible to answer my constituents about what the senate is doing i tell them the phrases fails i think i'm talking about an orchard i tell them we're debating whether we're going to have a debate and i can understand what we're doing like out of the senators on the floor during the exchange between the majority leader and the republican leader we have more than fifty senators here sitting around on the debate for a debate without reaching a resolution and i think that senator mcconnell is correct that i don't say that in the partisan sense i can track the attention of the distinguished republican leader i think he's correct and i repeat i don't say it in a partisan shands that there ought of the accommodation and there ought  mcconnell's been here for twenty four years i've been here for twenty six years senator byrd's been here for i can't count that high forty eight years and going on to forty nine and this is not the way to settle or to work better there's no way the senate has worked with all the majority leaders in the last two decades exercising their right of recognition and filling the tree and tying up the senate and now the senate is finally caught we're finally caught we're america  the world sees what we're doing and it's a little ridiculous to have this kind of gridlock and this pride of paralysis how much time do i have left mr president i have to talk about the judges senator as senator as four minutes but i thank the first of all i want to congratulate the senator is very observant he's concerned about the senate he understands the rulers but while he understands we don't need any more rules we've got senators a new insist on their rights as senators and they ought to speak up so they can be heard and they ought to pay attention we don't need new rules we've got rules that have been here for many many years and they've been tried and tried and tried again we need to read through senators should read the rules and senators should do understand that they are senators and they should be proud of that fact and we should demand that the rules be observed i can do that every senator can we don't need new rules we sent the new dunder stand the rules we have minutes what is the time situation the senator has trained on that is what follows the senator to senator from vermont as of one hour at one hour in the morning business succeeded by the minority by the by the republican leader  i've been around a little while i'd like to see if i could have three minutes following the senator from pennsylvania accommodate everybody  judges be included in the record since the time of about to expire action so ordered and i ask unanimous consent that my statement on the revision of the mccarran ferguson act legislation about to be introduced by senator before the day is up will come to terms and will announce some accommodation so there can be a fair resolution of the debate so that this body does not become irrelevant and we do not present a picture to the american people of gridlock and paralysis but we show that we are still the world's greatest deliberative body because we're about to say that side of the house of representatives which as we speak is deliberating which we are not doing now that we take up the iraqi issue and we show the american people in the world that we can reach an accommodation we can debate in accordance with the traditions of the senate and i ask my colleagues to seriously consider the resolution recognized for spending i haven't been here as long as my good friend from west virginia and the senior member on this side i never i cannot remember a time when we tied together the concept defining moment for the senate because as the senate pennsylvania has indicated if the majority of one can go to the house and negotiate a bill and bring it back and say the  ought to think twice there's only one vote difference here right now two votes on our good friend from south dakota comes back but as a practical matter the rights of the minority are that really in the whole country the hundred seventy fifth applicant over there and and deal with al qaeda in out afghanistan again our people need support and we need to be able to articulate the reasons why we support them if we follow the outline of the majority leader we will not have that chance except by talking and talking and talking but no amendments it is not right it's not the senate and i don't intend to stand by and and see the senate lose its role in under the constitution to be the second house of the congress this is not just a rubber stamp of the house that's what we will be if we follow the intention of the majority  under the previous order the senate will resume legislative session and conduct a period of mourning business the senator from vermont is recognized for sixty minutes as president  rather i am going to speak on iraq before i do that i see the distinguished senator from mississippi in the senior senator from pennsylvania on the floor and i will first competition laws are powerful tools to ensure the consumer welfare the benchmark for fair and accountable industry practices these competition laws what makes our businesses  work in america the vast majority of the companies doing business in the united states a subject trying to trust laws consumers benefit from lower prices more choices better services there are only a few industries operate outside the federal trust laws bipartisan measure that i've just introduced in the insurance industries exemption from the requirement of those laws and join a separate i said before by the ranking member of the senate specter's a strong record of supporting effective competition every industry through our anti trust laws and of course i've also said joined by the majority leader and by senator lot who is a deputy republican leader so a lot probably worse he was not in this position but he represents many of the gulf coast residents who can speak personally and painfully to the insurers can wreck on their policyholders surance industries practices affect us all perhaps nowhere is the industry's practices come under as much scrutiny along the gulf coast in mississippi for his tireless efforts and trying to assure the resources in place to rebuild and i know he's enjoying that effort by his colleague from mississippi senator cochran be bullied to neglected by insurance companies and then time in a knee an insurance industry is operated largely beyond the reach of federal id trust laws for more than six decades assuming there ever was a justification to exempt them from federal government oversight i find it hard to believe there is still a reason to exempt and not in the age checked being subject to the same antitrust laws is everyone out but why shouldn't they be subject to the same laws as every other company in this country they're that's less than five minutes the federal trade commission did in the health care industry so i think this is a significant step forward and i'm glad to see that the majority leader senator reid is behind this  without objection so year also but let me begin at the beginning of this effort i want to thank my colleagues for this bipartisan effort it shows what we can do when we work together now we've got a long road to go but this is being introduced as bipartisan leadership with leaders on both sides and leaders of the judiciary committee joining in this legislation how did i really get interested in this area well it's like so many things in my life to go back only till august twenty ninth two thousand and five when hurricane katrina devastated my hometown and an area of my state that i love so much south mississippi the gulf coast area  i had been active in years gone by actually in the insurance area i had done some law practice in that area had done some defense work but i never had really become steeped in the laws  to the industry because most of the times i was dealing with an automobile accident case or something of that nature well after hurricane katrina we learned a lot of lessons and we found a lot of new concerns and areas where we had to take action made be as a result of that is to make sure that we take a look at what happened what did we learn from what can we do to have more laws in the right things in place after the next natural disaster and there will be one or in the aftermath of this after we had questions about homeland security and the federal emergency management ministration and how they the military the coast guard everybody interplay together and so we've been trying to make those corrections were we need to ask ourselves do we need to get some additional thought about how we deal on a national level with the coverage of people or how we help them recover that we need a national catastrophic insurance  actress they have a waiver and i said how could that be now i remember hearing discussion over the years about the mccarren ferguson act but i never really focused on it and when i realized that rate and actually policy actions by the industry were not covered by and i was done you mean you know i understand you need a lot of information to decide on rates but insurance we don't have to pay under the household policies but wind damage and so as i got into it i found that this happened back in one nine hundred forty four at that point the there was a regulation looked at it looks like that everybody thought this was going to be temporary but that's not the way the courts of interpret the law under the mccarran ferguson act insurers are exempt from scrutiny so long as they are regulated by state law  and then you get into a patchwork of state laws do they really regulate them do they care is there a process for and i trust activity is to be considered over the years many have advocated my question is there is unique role for states to deal with the insurance questions and needs in those states but my question beyond that though is should the federal government has the right to make sure that there is not add a competitive activity is if there is not colluding i just think that we need to take a serious look at that this legislation would do that it would take away that exemption it would make the insurance industry subject to the same coverage that almost every other corporation america and frost legislation so i know my time is expired i thank the chair leads the thank senator leahy for doing this i look forward to having hearing mississippi i'm proud to be joining with him on this he and i have discussed this several times over the past over the past month and past several months and i told iraq war and what we should be say i really do not think any issue more important than that one for the united states senate i said many times on the floor of  hundred men and women who serve here apparently to do so none of us own a seat in the united states senate someday someone from our state will replace us and that's that is really the genius of the founders of this country but there are only one hundred of us there are three hundred million america three hundred million americans expect the one hundred of us to speak for that they don't have that opportunity they don't have a six year term they don't have a chance to be on the floor i consider it a great privilege just to be here i used to set up in those galleries when i was last to and watch the senate and thought this is the body that can be and should be often is the conscience of the nation i or the debates during that time of the vietnam war and i actually became the only vermonter to actually vote on whether we continue that war or not today we have a different war but we have people just as concerned as those for the war in iraq those against war in iraq but i'll tell you this mr president you go in my state of vermont everywhere you go when i'm in the grocery store buying groceries and people come up to me in times of me if i'm at the gas station or a gas my shoveling snow and yesterday we had two and a half feet of snow literally at my home in vermont people stop by and they want to talk about the war in iraq  guess it's not dissimilar in the state of montana and he's a very patriotic very honest very concerned people but damn legitimate questions and one thing it always comes down to why opportunity to debate a bipartisan resolution on iraq and the effort to fail or was blocked by some in the republican party who insisted on a separate vote that really was nothing more than a political all support the troops but we has a very mixed feelings about the president's policy that put brave american men and women in harm's way and as a lot of them in the case when anyone is asked a question or expressed reservations or of outright oppose the president's failed policy in iraq president defenders accuse is distractor detractor of not patriotic or not supporting the troops what blatant balderdash that is as one who for years is spot the veterans benefit fair treatment for the national guard for armor for our troops were sent by this administration into battle unprepared and still five years it's about don't have the armor th the government that sent them there should be the observer accusation that is on patriotic to disagree with a policy that has resulted in the deaths of american thousands of american soldiers and created a terrorist haven and i can pray that before our invasion paul is no threat to the united states this accusation believable for those of this administration can make no mistakes in iraq reminds me of my days when i was a prosecutor when the defendant was caught rumsfeld ignoring all advice to the contrary let us into this costly fiasco these are the people who when they had a chance to get osama bin laden and we pose a threat rak did not have weapons of mass destruction those who read the intelligence would realize that but for some reason is so fixated going into iraq they're just off our shores the troops are not allowed numbered he had to wait there for the president fly out so he can hang the sign mr and accomplish some mission some accomplishment flawed policies of this administration have thrust our troops into the model of a bloody civil war our troops are not responsible for the mistaken policies they have been asked to implement policy makers in washington are responsible for that and only decision makers in washington can change those policy or my youngest son member of the marine corps men and what doing armed services that was a different war and thank god it was over so quickly neither he nor many others caught up when i was way but the policy makers make this policy and only the decision makers in washington can change us policy not the not the troops on the ground and the polls you know i'm mistaken believe that a majority of the american people want the congress to debate and vote on the president's policy in iraq they floor and state so but also if there are those of us to feel we've done all we can do bring our men and women home we shared the opportunity to stand this far and say so because the cost of this misadventure and not just been onerous they have been catastrophic more than three thousand americans killed more than twenty thousand and tens of thousands of innocent iraqis have lost their lives in material terms were fast approaching a one trillion dollar mark the bill for iraq we're throwing money out the door at a rate of more than two billion dollars per week to fund this war we're told because of the things we can afford america because we're going to spend two billion dollars a week in iraq we're cutting funds for law enforcement for police on our streets in america so we can put the money into murderous police force reputation and remember the international reputation of america which has always been so good as broad as great influence but it's been now been tarnished especially among our allies and diminished and when you lose that reputation you lose the ability you lose the ability to shape events around the world so where are we in iraq we're in the midst of a civil war among religious and ethnic factions and insurgency that shows no signs of diminishing and out of control organized crime it's hard to say that we've made any real progress toward the larger objectives a break in democracy to iraq or the middle east back i might say those who talk about bringing it's really time we face a screamer reality it's time we deal with it our soldiers lives are in the balance america's reputation is in the balance america's ability to set an example for the rest of the world is in the balance i made a brief statement on tuesday about a call on last sunday's washington post by retired lieutenant general w i know general odom well i worked with him on some of the most significant intelligence matters in this country he has won the most distinguished military intelligence careers he continues to provide powerful insights on national security and in this piece in town victory is not an option he outlines how this administration's entire policy in iraq including the so called surge strategy sowed the fitting inability to face reality the reality according to general is that we are not going to make iraq a democracy the longer we stay the more likely iraq will be anti america at the end of our intervention just think of that after a trillion dollars we don't have a democracy and we have someone we have a country that reason says our invasion made civil war  increase a rainy and involvement in iraq inevitable and no amount of military force especially after so many errors of judgement will prevent those outcomes meanwhile our presence is only stoking al qaeda involvement in iraq the reality is that supporting our troops does not mean keeping and they are to carry out a failed strategy that means pursuing a course to protect the country's interests and prevents more americans from dying in pursuit of an  ended strategy that cannot succeed general owner knows we need to begin an orderly withdrawal from iraq he argues that we should join with other countries in the region those input this administration has often ignored and seek to stabilize the region to sustain a high level diplomacy these views are in line with those of some of our senior military officers and other national security experts and many of us in congress and i might say a majority of the american people after all the people who are supposed to represent the un look at what the administration and the founders of the republican party  instead they get tele busters this time a debate on our iraq policy will give us a more rhetoric about not supporting our troops and we get a bill from the president for another hundred billion dollars to send twenty thousand more troops and continue the war but the president cannot face the reality that even some members of his own party increasingly have come to accept that it's our responsibility at all to say our patriotic but we know the president will ignore it he's already said so we know it's only a first step toward binding legislation by senators obama and feingold to begin to phase redeployment of our troops out of iraq it's not our role to choose sides in the civil war that's a prescription for disaster it is not our troops road to die trying to force these warring factions to sell their age old differences we need to continue to fight the taliban and al qaida in afghanistan we need to deploy sufficient forces intelligence assets to try to down international terrorists around the world we need to do a lot better job of polic borders without denying entry to innocent people are fleeing persecution general odom is right keeping our troops in iraq is not make us safer we should be bringing our troops home be bringing them home with the thanks of the nation for doing their duty in congress has in its power to force the president change course the time of the american people should expect us to to act for the american people that's of the american people want that's what we should be debating i'm this president but my full statement in  without objection swor the senator from new york and i will not object but i wish to just say a word before before we proceed further i just want to urge my colleagues to accept this  i'd ask unanimous consent that after objection is heard if it is heard that senator leahy be permitted to yield five minutes to me and then he immediately regained the  it is these are objections to the request by the center from ramallah sent of my no mr president it's my understanding that the senator from arizona does desire to object to this unanimous consent proposal and could not be here on the floor so on his behalf i do  avail these changes and why didn't actually a better parent abuse of power by the ministration that actually threatens to undermine the effectiveness and professionalism of u s attorneys offices around i want to thank him for that i want to thank senator specter for his active involvement which led to a bipartisan so should we or the patriot act change the law removed one hundred twenty day limit for the appointment of interim u s attorneys and allowed the train general for the first time to make so called interim appointments last forever they never get confirmed by the senate we never get a check and balance and we've learned recently for example that the primary justices asked several outstanding s attorneys from around the country to resign their position several perhaps not coincidentally engage in difficult complex public corruption cases we also understand the attorney general has or is planning to appoint interim replacements for the u s attorney is removing do it in such way as they will not be set for confirmation that's an end run around it checks and balances situation arkansas for example is a troublesome one tourney generally move respected u s attorney but cummins replaced him with the interim appointment of tim griffin talking points from the administration be screaming about come out about because somebody died or been a tragedy or something no there there is variation cherry picking where they want to take get rid of professional prosecutors and they're doing no good reason then they say oh gosh we haven't had time to send you up somebody to be confirmed when i have plenty of time to pick these people and get rid of them so something that you know for the last many  the average confirmation took seventy one days i mean it could be done very quickly fired they have to go after somebody of the party of the person well the heads of government and not be replaced because somebody is crony  vermont for his leadership on this issue as well as yielding time and i it's unfortunate that his that the senator from vermont a unanimous consent request was objected to now i would just like to report to my colleagues on both the hearing that we had which is public record and more to the point the private meeting we had yesterday with the deputy attorney general mr mcnulty who was gracious and who is a very fine person but neither the hearing nor the private meeting we had a late our fears in fact it increased them in a variety of ways as we know at least seven u s attorneys were  recent weeks the attorney general has flatly denied that politics has played a part but the bottom line is even at the hearing it was admitted that one u s attorney was fired without cause and replaced by somebody who had worked for karl rove and the republican national committee and didn't have much of a record being a prosecutor even more troubling was the firing of the u s attorney  from san diego the southern district of california who was in the midst of a very high level investigation that led to the conviction of congressman cunningham cunningham and yesterday the indictments of two more in that so it's hardly a concluded investigation the bottom line at yesterday's briefing by the deputy attorney general did little to alleviate our concerns that politics was involved in several of these firings and in fact raised those concerns it seems that when you got a preliminary look we didn't get a look but a preliminary description of the ears reports the evaluations that most of the u s attorneys not all but most of the u s attorneys who were fired had very fine recommendations there were a few policy disputes but particularly in the area of the u s attorney from the southern district of california in the midst of an ongoing investigation there was some policy disagreements about how to deal with those crossing the border she was told to change it and there's no knowledge or observation whether she changed it or not and yet she was fired in the midst of a much more serious much more high profile investigation political investigation and so mr president the idea that people were fired for no cause the idea that some may have been in this is not proven but it's certainly the hero and the private meeting increased rather than decreased my concerns may have been fired for political reasons because they may have either in some cases not done what the justice department wanted to do particularly remember this was right before election time or may have been doing going forward with a very very serious investigation into local political officials remains as real possibilities so we asked to see the ears reports at the hearing at the meeting yesterday at the private meeting paul mcnulty the deputy u s attorney general said that some of the information was taken under confidence these are evaluations and they ask lawyers judges fellow u s attorneys how the office is their wing and how the u s attorney is doing and if they were to reveal their names it might jeopardize the confidentiality of future years reports that's a reasonable thing so we said could we get the reports and redact the names of those who are saying this is a good or bad u s attorney mr mcnulty said he'd get back to us on that issue we await it but make no mistake about it we will get those ears reports either they will be given to us with the necessary redaction but i've spoken to my colleague from california senator feinstein we will ask senator leahy who has been our leader on this issue for the judiciary committee to subpoena them we will see them and if they show that the u s attorneys were doing a good job if they show that they were people who should be there there will be real trouble it means two things first we will get to the bottom of this and there it's still too many troubling questions out there we have to have another hearing we will and second it means whatever the investigation finds there's enough troubling evidence out there now that the legislation that senator feinstein has authored senator leahy myself have co sponsored should be passed the mediately and therefore mr president it is regrettable that there was objection that we don't move to rectify this situation and do it right now with that mr president the floor and i know my colleague from california has more to say on this issue mr president the senator from california mr president i want to thank the senator from new york i want to thank him for his subcommittee holding the hearing for his leadership on this issue and for understanding really what is at stake here and being willing to be out front in doing something about it what i'd like to do for the american public is lay out the history of this particular issue and place it in context unbeknownst to any of us in march of two thousand and six and the patriot act reauthorization a provision was included that allows me an attorney general to appoint an interim u s attorney for an indefinite period of time and you might say well what's wrong with that what's wrong with that is it avoids confirmation prior to this change the law stated that the attorney general could appoint interim u s attorneys but only for one hundred  twenty days after that time the authority to appoint an interim u s attorney would fall to the district court why because that gave incentive to the administration to present a u attorney nominee to the senate of the united states for hearing four questions for review and for a vote to confirm now this structure for senate in zero six was relatively new it was enacted during the reagan administration when strom thurmond included it in a broader bill and that was just described as a technical corrections bill on criminal procedures before that from the eighteen ninety eight until the sermon veil was enacted district courts held the sole authority to appoint interim u s attorneys that existed for well over a hundred years it was critical van and it is now the united states attorneys all receive senate confirmation and by having the district courts make them that interim appointment it is sure that that confirmation would take place now no one expected the rash of firings from the department of justice i first learned about the department's actions early in january at that time i learned that main justice in washington had placed calls to at least seven possibly more u s attorneys and asked them to resign by a date specific in january i was also told that the intention was to bring in outside lawyers from main justice or from elsewhere to take over these posts and to serve without confirmation for the remainder of the bush presidency the department of justice has now acknowledged in public in hearing that such calls were made to quote less than ten u s attorneys asking them to step aside we also know that prior to this action there were already thirteen u s attorney vacancies pending with only two nominations presented by the administration to the judiciary committee this means that if you add the seven to ten u s attorneys who are asked to resign to the current alive and vacancies without nominees there could be between eighteen and twenty one u s attorney positions throughout the country that the attorney general could fill without securing senate confirmation that's over twenty percent of u s attorneys nationally they could be filled again for the remaining two years of the bush presidency without going through senate confirmation now this new provision in the patriot act would also allow the next president to put in place all of the ninety three u attorneys and let them serve the entire four year term without benefit of confirmation it was a mistake i suspect the amendment to the patriot act came from the justice department was quietly put in the bill and none of us at the time were the wiser and then suddenly at a certain point the justice department said ok let's begin to remove some of these people and give some of our all right young people an opportunity to step up and become a u s attorney this is wrong the justice department has backed away from it let me talk about a few of the u s attorneys involved here according to press reports at least three were given glowing reviews from their performance o audit in the recent past according to the las vegas review journal daniel bogden the u s attorney for new said wednesday that he was stunned to hear the department of justice requested that he step down from this post because of performance reasons he went on to say to this day and i quote no one from the department has previously identified any issues with my performance or the performance of my office and quote a similar story has surfaced about washington u s attorney john mckay the seattle times reported last week seven months and i quote before he was forced to resign as u s attorney for the western district of washington john mckay received a glowing performance review from justice department evaluators and quote the article went on to quote the report which stated quote mckay is an effective well regarded and capable leader of the u s attorney's office according to the team of twenty seven justice department officials yet on december seventh michael battle director of the justice department's executive office for u s attorneys called mckay and asked him to step down quote i was told to resign by the end of january mckay confirmed quote i asked what the reason was and they told me there was none and of quote then of course there is arkansas u s attorney bud cummins in a story that ran last last month mr cummins stated that the director of the executive office of u s attorneys michael battle made it clear that although he was being asked to leave quote it was not about me but about their desire someone else the opportunity to have the appointment and quote mr coleman said that he specifically asked if his job performance as a problem when he got the call quote mr ba assured me it was exactly to the contrary and quote so these are three cases that have been documented that u s attorneys did not have any performance related concerns as alleged by the department in addition i've heard similar reports about other u s attorneys and i want to speak in specific about one and that's the u s attorney from san diego california today is u s attorney carol lam's last day in office i want to commend her i want to thank her for the work she has done in that office she was sworn in as u s attorney in september of two thousand and two and was appointed by the president in november prior to serving as u s attorney she was a judge of the superior court of san diego and she served as an assistant u s attorney in the southern district of california for eleven years so she was no newcomer she has been successful in bringing many of the countr most important corruption cases and i want to go through a few of them in march of zero four steven mark lash the former chief financial officer of f p a medical management was sentenced for his role in defrauding shareholders and lenders of f p a the collapse of the company left more than sixteen hundred doctors being told more than sixty million dollars and patients reported being unable to obtain medical care because the f d a had ceased paying providers thank you carol lam in january two thousand and five because of mrs lamb's efforts mar anthony kolo age owner of world express pled guilty to conspiracy to selling counterfeit pharmaceuticals conspiracy to commit mail fraud and smuggle pharmaceuticals and  conspiracy to launder money mr cola which had run an internet pharmacy website where customers could order prescription drugs without a valid for scription the judge called him the kingpin an architect of an illicit pharmaceutical ring that recruited many others to smuggle drugs across the united states mexico border at san used to drop this lamb also announced the charges had been filed against five other individuals in a related case involving my r x for less dot com thank you carol lam in july two thousand and five miss lamb brought a case against two san diego councilman councilman ralph in boone's up and councilman michael's a chap who along with las vegas lobbyist lance malone were convicted on multiple  for fraud conspiracy and wire fraud they were accused of trading money for efforts to repeal a law and in november two thousand and five miss lamb secured a guilty ple from former representative randy duke cunningham for taking more than two million dollars in bribes in a criminal conspiracy case involving at least three defense contractors after he accepted cash and gifts and then tried to influence the defense department on behalf of donors he also pled guilty to a separate tax evasion violation for failing to discuss loz income in two thousand and four thank you carol lam in addition earlier this week carol lam announced two more indictments of kyle dusty foggo former top officer at the cia and brant wil defense contractor accused of bribing duke cunningham and the prime benefactor of the secret cia contracts thank you carol lam and this woman was call and told to resign by a date specific after she has done all of this good work miss lamb and the san diego u s attorney's office have also pursued and successfully prosecuted other important cases including in september over five the president of the san diego chapter of hells angels pled guilty to conspiracy to commit racketeering guy russell casting he admitted that he conspired to kill members of a rival motorcycle gang the mongols and to sell methamphetamine thank you carol lam and then in december two thousand and five damon buchanan member of hell's angels was sentenced to ninety two months in federal prison for participating in a pattern of racketeering he admitted in his guilty plea that he and other hells angels also inflicted serious bodily injury upon one victim and that another hells angel brandished a firearm during the offense at that time miss lamb announced and i quote with the president sergeant at arms secretary treasurer and six other members of the hells angels convicted of racketeering charges and facing long prison sentences the san diego chapter of the hells angels have been effectively shut down for the foreseeable future and of quote thank you carol lam and what does she get fired without cause in september two thousand and six jose or nest o beltran keno not a mexican national pled guilty to making false statements about weapons of mass destruction mr keene known as was sentenced to three years in federal prison for making up a story about chinese terrorists sneaking into the united states with a nuclear warhead thank you carol lam in december excuse me in january two thousand and five a hoax prompted a massive investigation federal warnings discussions at one of president bush's security briefings and a nationwide hunt for the group of chinese supposedly plotting the attack thank you carol lam in december two thousand and six mel kay of golden state fence company and michael mclaughlin pled guilty to felony charges of hiring illegal immigrants and agreed to pay fin of two hundred thousand and one hundred thousand dollars respectively the company which built more than a mile of the fifteen foot high fence near the otay mesa border crossing in san diego agreed separately to pay five million on a misdemeanor count one of the largest ever imposed on and poirot for immigration violations thank you carol lamb these are just some of the important carol lam has pursued during her tenure she does not deserve this kind of treatment in addition during her previous time in the office miss lamb prosecuted and can victim several high ranking members of la cosa nostra a chicago based organized crime family she also secured a guilty plea and settlement of one hundred and ten million i understand my time aside i'd like to conclude may i ask for three additional minutes in animists consent without objection so ordered very much and i thank the senator for that he also secured a guilty plea and settlement one hundred ten million against national health black health laboratories in a medicare fraud case mrs lamb had a distinguished career and she serves the southern district of sacramento we and everyone in that district knows that i regret that main justice does not i'm quite disappointed that main justice chose to remove her especially given given the ongoing work that the office is involved in now like senator schumer i was president yesterday when the justice department briefed us and several other senators as to why they asked to leave the asked these u s attorneys to leave with the record i just pointed out nothing that was said justifies asking this u s attorney to leave without cause nothing and that's why this is an issue because i believe that their intent was to bring in people from the outside to give some of their bright people an opportunity this might not be wrong if the also they would avoid confirmation so they could bring in political operatives they could bring in anybody else is wrong if i hadn't been given this information we never would have known because the likelihood is that these u s attorneys would have just quietly be essentially fired and retired to another job or retired in a society somewhere else this is not the way we should function and that's why this is a major issue that's why the majority leader of the united states senate wishes to bring this bill to the floor to put it back to where it was prior to that section of the patriot act being slipped in without our knowledge during the debate and i hope the bill will come to the floor and i hope we can change it back and i hope we can go out and say to the american people this will never happen again every u s attorney will have confirmation before the senate of the united states i thank the chair i thank the senator i yield the floor mr president senator from idaho thank you mr president i rise today to speak about a tremendous thing that has happened in the senate and that is that the senate today confirmed my good friend randy smith to be a judge on the ninth circuit before i make my personal remarks however our senior senator from idaho senator larry craig also wanted to make remarks but because of the hour delay in being able to obtain the floor he has had other obligations that have taken him away and he has left with me a statement that i would ask unanimous consent at this time to have placed in the record that's out of jackson so ordered thank you very much mr president this today really is the conclusion of a sometimes unnecessarily long and difficult process for the confirmation of judge smith judge smith was originally nominated by the president back on december sixteenth two thousand and five for a seat on the ninth circuit court of appeals that was vacated when i told judge steven trott took senior status earlier this year through negotiations with the white house judge smith was renominated to a different idaho seat on the ninth circuit that had been vacated when judge thomas nelson took senior status since  smith has served as a district judge for the sixth judicial district of the state of idaho judge smith there in his undergraduate and his law degrees from brigham young university and throughout his career both in private practice and as a judge judge smith has continued to be a student and teacher of the law he taught courses in business law and tax law at brigham young and later at boise state university since one thousand nine hundred three he has served on the faculty at idaho state university teaching legal environment and business law prior to becoming a judge randy smith spent more than fifteen years in private practice gaining significant experience before both state and federal courts he's a member of the bar of the united states supreme court the ninth circuit court of appeals the united states district court for the state of idaho the u s tax court the idaho supreme court and all of the other courts of the state of idaho in addition to his current position as district judge united judge smith also serves from time to time as pro tem justice on the idaho supreme court as a judge on the court of appeals also and as a temporary judge in district cour throughout the state of idaho he literally handles approximately one hundred federal and state civil cases each year in two thousand and four judge smith received the george c granada jr award presented by the idaho state ju in recognition of demonstrated professionalism as an idaho trial judge and for motivating and inspiring his colleagues on the bench by his character and actions in two thousand and two he received the outstanding service award from the idaho state bar board of commissioners judge smith is also a member of the board of directors and is the past president of the idaho state civic symphony the american bar association has given him its unanimous well qualified rating for his nomination to the ninth circuit madam president it's really my honor today to personally congratulate judge smith as i said earlier he's a personal friend i've known him for years and have watched him give service to the people of the state of idaho of the highest caliber he has shown himself to have the principles and values to be the kind of judge that america needs he understands that we need a conservative understanding and interpretation of the united states constitution that the role of the judge is interpretation of the law not creation of law he understands the value that comes from having solid at heron's to the principles of our constitution as issues are adjudicated he will be a tremendous new asset and addition to the ninth circuit court of appeals and as i said at the outset this has been a long sometimes very unnecessarily burdensome and difficult process to get his nomination here to the floor but i'm sure that his strength that that he will bring to the ninth circuit was shown by the vote of confidence given to him here today a unanimous vote by the senators present ninety four to zero confirming him to be the next judge on the ninth circuit court of appeals this is a tremendous day for randy smith but it is also a tremendous day for the ninth circuit court of appeals the people who live in that circuit and frankly for the people of live coverage of the u s senate on c span two so far today the senate has approved a couple of federal judgeships and earlier to today debated how to proceed with debate on a resolution on iraq first of all the u s house they continue a third day now of debate on a non binding resolution expressing their disapproval of the president's plan to increase troops in iraq with a a vote on that measure likely on friday now here in the senate a couple of things to tell you about they as we mentioned they did discuss the way to proceed about an hour ago or so and congressional quarterly reports that like this two republican critics of president bush's iraq strategy objected to a routine adjournment resolution for president's day recess in a bid to jumpstart the stalled debate on iraq the article continues the move by olympia snowe of maine and chuck hagel of nebraska with yet another attempt to end the deadlock over the issue democrats are seeking an up or down vote on president bush's decision to send more troops to iraq while g o p leaders are demanding votes on amendments that's the the issue as you buy c q again the debate continues over in the house the senate expecting to  off on the president's day holiday next and then back monday the twenty sixth by the way if you'd like more information on that debate if you'd like to see how representatives have spoken on the floor of the house you can go to our website c span dot org and click on featured links to read the resolution the house debating to look at some of those speeches as well and registered nurse darcy doyle died tragically during an air rescue mission on february sixth their deaths are a tremendous loss to their families every minute counted the victim's injury had to be treated as quickly as possible the longer it took to get him to the hospital the worse his chances were for survival the only way and without concern for their own safety they knew that somebody's life is hanging in the balance this is the type of pressure filled situations always operated in  montana i can give that kind of care someone with severe injuries immediately needs so called level one hospitals have operating rooms surgeons or radiologist available twenty four hours a day seven days a week ready for any patients with severe injuries were brought in there are no level on hospitals in montana level two hospitals have the right facilities but the doctors are not in the hospital around the clock to be immediately when a patient arrives there are only three level two trauma centers in montana it is very expensive to run hospitals that offer this high level specialized care almost three hospitals in montana one buildings any rate falls such services so every patient that needs a trauma center has to go to one of these hospitals this makes air ambulance transportation even more important given montana's eight hundred miles span and mountainous terrain the benefice medivac program provides twenty four hour seven day week air ambulance transportation in montana and the northwest aircraft respond to i areas accident scenes and hospitals to bring patients to the regional emergency center as quickly as possible the dedicated pilots nurses these paramedics that operate the benefi medivac program by honorable and essential services to montana the three benefits professionals that lost their lives last week were trying to do just that darcy dangle a twenty seven year old registered nurse she joined benefits in june two thousand and one and transferred to the urgency room in august two thousand and three or see also worked as a flight nurse her benefits colleagues describe her as a bright talented and fire bright woman who loved her work because she gave her self that got that work gave her a unique opportunity to help people and need she was able to family described darcy this way quote she was a light she didn't worry about danger in her work as a flight nurse she wanted to help people polar axis and was thirty three years old and was a medic on the flight as a firefighter who worked on the mercy flight on those days off he worked side by side with his wife rochelle with the trauma coordinator for benefits they had a baby boy last july spencer pilot assistant fire chief steve hester said at this his colleagues this paulk is it a service to the community is all about service to others he knew that in rural montana all the way you can get air help sometimes is by air their deaths are a tremendous loss to montana they were good servants and they are heroes our hearts and our prayers go out their family and to their friends better  mr alexander speak as one of those who says that we've had enough we've had enough there we've lost over three thousand people and the rockies lost substantial numbers and one would have to be really hard hearted if when you look in the paper and you see a child weeping over a dead mother brother sister or people lying on the streets dead from brutal attacks and the internal civil war and we're trying to figure out what we do to protect our people what what what is it that we want to accomplish with these votes that have been taken here and i think it's fair to say that what we would like this side of the aisle and i'm sure there are many colleagues on the other side who feel as we do but would be out of step politically if they the vote that we want to take do you approve or don't you approve of sending more troops into that deathtrap how long do we want to stay there what do we have to prove by the supporting the president's order the president's interest in the so called surge they try to disguise the word w escalate surge surge going to be in terror did many ways but escalate it was very clear more people there put more people in harm's way put more people in an abyss and which there is no way that anyone has told us out of the situation and i'm not you know we get the argument oh you want to cut and run do you want to stay and die is that what the alternative is ask the families who have children brothers fathers mothers there they come in to see maybe people who have someone who is in iraq scared to death about what kind of news they'll get some nights i do woman in the office one day with a group of other people sobbing so hard that she couldn't talk why because her son had been wounded light wound enough to earn him a purple heart being sent back and hazardous duty he was willing to do it his mother didn't want him to do it but at what point do we say the pain is so that we can't stand it and it has nothing to do would cut and run i wore a uniform in world war two others here have as well others here have worn a uniform worn the country's uniform in vietnam korea we've had a lot of experience with wars but in each case if we didn't have an objective we fared very badly and that was true unfortunately in vietnam where we finally had to wrap it up go home leaving fifty eight thousand of our brothers and sisters still there and if not physically in sharp memory and now we see what's happening  i bring to our attention the fact that in iraq in the month of january we lost eighty three of our bravest in february february early in february we've already lost forty eight members of the american military and the rocky desh i mean if one looks at the at the number of people who have been murdered there and suicide was suicide bombs roadside bombs brutal murders hands tied behind their back blindfolded and it goes on and if we could wish it away if we could see an end to it i'd be more than willing to leave troops there to kind of monitor the last live parts of a war that is one of the worst that america's been in and mr president what we see it's not only the numbers that  perishing daily weekly but tactics the tactics so using shooting down helicopters now that wasn't something that we saw before but suddenly now there are in recent couple weeks three helicopters have been taken down by enemy fire that changes the top of the complex and saying because helicopters were a natural part of our ability our capacity to fight back so if we can't do that that means put more people on the ground lose more people it ought not to be that way the president last week we took a vote here and it was a  on with the issue about whether or not you want to send more troops than we have there now the number estimated to be twenty one thousand or in combat that forty eight thousand roughly would be the total number because you need the support troops as well so that vote was the skies this something else which is what our friends are doing today disguising what their intent is their intent is to escape the responsibility they took when they voted against the against closing the debate the other day that's what happens they do a lot of discomfort over there i think our colleagues who are from the state of minnesota is this there are no i'm not mistaken he was one of those who said let's cut the debate get on with the issue that's what is message was that not interested so much in our tactical maneuvering here or the process they want to know do we want to send more troops into that inferno or do we want to try to figure out a way to get out of there as quickly as practicable that's the question so they voted the wrong way and now heaven forbid we had something that we could vote on that was voted on by way of closing the debate that was developed by senator carl levin of michigan chairman of arm the armed services committee and supported fully by senator john warner who himself was a veteran and served and at the time of the world war two agreed with him that we ought to show our displ wasn't anything radical awaited weren't calling the other side names said we want to stop this escalation we don't want to put more troops out there harm's way we don't want to see more limb less that friends we have almost eight hundred now a little less lost one limb at least and we have twenty five thousand who've been injured a lot of severe injuries that you can't tell in addition to those who have the physical loans that are the visible ones that we see and so we want to get on with the vote want to let us have an honest  about whether you're for escalation or you're against it want to throw more and there's a iraq a war one of our sons and daughters there or do you want to start coming home and rehabilitating their families that's the question instead it's dressed up here well if we voted to adjourn it would be a sign that we're not supporting the troops but loney we support the troops probably each and every one of the pows that's over who is over there now is a hero to us each and every one because many of them disagree with the policy that got them there the boss of bosses the case of whether or not there were that weapons of mass destruction they're not happy but there's ten minutes in the morning business has expired i ask unanimous consent that i get five more amount of their objection to deliberate attempt to avoid the question yes or no how do you stand on the escalation of this war how do you stand on sending more sons and the public across this land of ours to be fooled by the bait structures by delaying tactics we can't do that the other side will not permit us to do it we know how to count votes so we know that we don't have enough to do what we'd like to but the house has taken the bull by the horns the house is considering and it favorably considered there not yet voted that says but we don't we're against this escalation republicans and as well as democrats there are going to join  and what we're saying here is let us simply focus on that and that's what's been asked for by our leadership so i hope mr president that we will be able to send food this debate find out let the american people know where we stand each one of us when we raise our hand each one of us will be making a declaration that they think it's necessary to put more of our troops out there to put them at run them people who for the most part who read service they served one states or twice a year each and now being talked about this part of a third column because the president has decided against the will of many outstanding military experts those who have served at the highest rank they say no i won't help but mr president the president i'd say is very stubborn on this issue and despite all of the opposition opposition here opposition across this country i think that number is around seventy percent of the people don't want to continue to do night intend to speak in morning business and talk about an issue of great importance minnesota access to health care iraq means i just have to make one comment though in response to my colleague from new jersey iraqis most important issue facing america today is no question about it i want to raise some concerns about the surge in baghdad and understand we're fighting a war against insurgency and foreign fighters in anbar province and if then post the commanders on the ground what's wanted to give it to them raise concerns voting on whether you support continued funding we should be voting on whether there should be benchmarks would you do what the senate does which is debate have discussion and then a vote and what the majority is attempting to do is this is to forestall that amendments no discussion about other things other than a proposal that comes out that's absurd it's not the united states senate is not the greatest deliberative body in the world and we do better the american public deserves better and i hope our leaders can come together and figure out a way to structure a debate so that all of that opinions can be laid out can be discussed and then we can vote and not on one thing that a fifty one person majority says but the way the senate does we put it on the table and we vote no i may disagree with some of my there are small towns on there but they are on there and they are important william jennings bryan one said burn down our cities and leave our farmland in the cities will rise again like magic but burn off farms and grass will grow up in the streets of america depends upon what our rural communities produce so what happens in america's small towns is a big deal i want to take some time to talk about some of the challenges the folks in my world communities with facing the urgency of this hits close to home we with grasshoppers in drought they've dealt with blizzards unreliable foreign policies and fries and they prosper they survive but now they've taken a hit and when you lose a rural hospital you lose x yes to health care you lose jobs and you lose i think a little bit of the heart of the community and they already have issues facing hospitals like like i have a no declining number of admissions declining reimbursement payments that put them at a severe disadvantage and the health care market and also by their stories not unique twenty one percent of our population lives in rural areas but only nine percent of doctors work there only two point four percent of specials work in those areas nearly half of all residents have at least one major chronic illness yet they average few apposition contacts per year than those in urban communities i believe that access to health care should not be dependent on where you live that's not america in the year two thousand and seven and i'm fortunate right now rural communities don't have the personnel capabilities technology money to provide their residents the health care they need they get and squeezed at every angle but the stability of rural communities for the health of all america because america needs a strong vibrant real communities we need to find solutions that's why i'm taking this opportunity to introduce a package of bills which seeks to give rural areas access to the same tools they can use to promote some of the tools they can use to promote the health of their communities same tools that others have the burden of chronic illnesses heavy in rural areas  rates of chronic disease including heart disease and cancer mental health is a significant issue and is national study that forty one percent of rural women were depressed or anxious compared listen twenty percent of urban women that forty percent of all visits are all practitioners  due to stress distress working in these committees stress financial stress great challenges so providing adequate mental health care and real communities has become a national problem today one of the bills of things that i'm introduced is going to be working together for access to his mental health and wellness with children and seniors act and what i want to do is put in place a system that allow federal grants to be given to states to provide assistance world communities conduct collaborative efforts improve access to mental health care for youth seniors and families were residents face serious health issues not only the term of the illness but also in terms of the lack of easily accessible services only wanted five americans live in rural areas but only one in ten physicians said were practice in those areas one of the keys to world health care is critical access hospital and a critical access hospitals which president have the time right now we kind of push the envelope on time and in morning business but i think it's important that my colleagues across the board really understand what we have with these critical access hospitals in one nine hundred ninety seven we enacted the balanced budget act in this critical access oswal program was put in place to preserve healthcare services in rural communities i've traveled to many and been to so i think we have about the third highest number in the nation about eighty of them and as i travel around what you find out is that your real communities that these are twenty five houses they offer quality health care they have a tremendous service but they are able to do that financially because of this critical access hospital designation i worked in a sort of hospital association they've been tremendous representing the smaller hospitals but they're facing some challenges one of them has been with that without reimbursement minnesota as his community ages aleksey many seniors have to choose between gas or food money if leaving town to get the very basics of health care was the only option there are a number of folks who would forego the needed care seniors and other living others living in rural areas deserve a better critical access hospitals provide them and so what we have is we have some challenges i mean introduce something called the rural health services preservation act it's going to allow critical s possible to get reimbursed the same amount under the medicare advantage programs as they would under medicare i'm not going to get into the details of that but the issue really is getting the right level getting reimbursement and if you don't get that remember a one percent difference mr president in reimbursement in these critical actually zero hospitals make a difference between life and death and it really is life and death for the folks who are living there i heard a story recently from roy whitman president of the new own medical center recently a fifty five year old the right knew all medical center mers it was with chest pain he was having a heart attack with an eighty two manage the same thing eighty two minutes the same patient was assessed transported had his heart vessel opened at a tertiary house one hundred miles away the situation was excessive because new york medical center had the ability to transmit information about patient quick quickly and easily not all hospitals is fortunate to have this vital service so access to information technology is another critical element to the success and surviv critical access hospitals and i will put in place a bill that i introduce that will give small world hospitals a competitive edge but these health information technology grants we also can do the wall with remote monitoring you have the ability today to simply lift up the phone  doctor tell you what your blood pressure is and how you're feeling and you know how you're feeling minnesota prides itself on being at the center of medical technology we've got the medtronic from the boston scientific to st jude chronic pacemakers we can do a lot with remote access using technology we've got to make sure it's in our rural communities this president we have some great great great challenges critical access process hospitals are sent our essential thought of it they provide us with that and and again i want to come back to the know the status and should worry about the quality of health care because so that they're going to get less of because of where they live it shouldn't happen today and our rural communities can't process what they need quality health care communities provide us with food and energy and more importantly the values and leadership that keep our nation on track just as we care for our bodily harm we need to care for our spiritual heart enroll america or the whole nation will suffer that is why my legislation attempts to raise the needs of our small town neighbors to become a national priority is present watching there are a thousand issues in a few priorities and this really should be a priority i encourage all of my colleagues to consider joining me to ensuring that every american has access to the care that they need to lead a healthy and productive lives i invite my colleagues to join with me to co sponsor one of the seven bills they have aimed at doing just that from birth through chronic disease management end of life care critical access hospitals meet the healthcare needs of our communities and our communities trust that we will continue to do so in the future mr president i ask you as an example of my complete statement you entered into the record and mr president the senator from kansas prison as that for the procedure to come call be dispensed with without objection present to want to rise and speak on the issue that is presently for this body and  whether we can get a formal here and i will see but on the issue of the war in iraq i think this is critically important we discuss it i'm delighted to see that we're having private disk actions about it but i think it's time we engage it i want to say as one who does not support the troop surge i think it's important we have a full process and it's important we have a full process that amendments are allowed that people are allowed to put forward different ideas and thoughts it is the key issue of our day it is an important issue of our day is something that shouldn't be drug out but i don't think asking for three or four or five even amendments to this is something that would drag it out i think instead that's what allows for a full discussion and we certainly need a full discussion on the record  but it needs to be a full discussion of the ideas and i would really urge the democratic leader the majority leader to to bring this forward in a way that we could debate various options as i've been in this body certainly on contentious issues here given different viewpoints to allow people to vote on one that's so important so critical to the issues that day i think this is important for us to have multiple viewpoints so even as one who does not support the troop surge which i don't believe this is the wise route to go i believe this body should have options i would not support a cloture motion that says we will only have one option to vote on i don't think that is fair or appropriate process for this body to follow i think it would be important that we have a full debate and on the full range of issues goodness for us to take a couple of weeks to discuss this would not be an appropriate given the importance and the magnitude and the seriousness of the moment i support the troops we support we all support the troops and we need to support the troops in the field but that doesn't mean we can't have a debate but it also doesn't mean we should just be limited to one thought that you can have out here to vote on we should have a multiple set of ideas and fully vetted and fully discussed as i've traveled across this country and in my home state this is one  have a lot of different viewpoints and a lot of different ideas and everybody supports the troops but they may not agree with how the wars proceed forward they think there ought to be other tactics employed and they want viewpoints expressed i think that's probably appropriate the president invites that and responsible ways that we bring these ideas and viewpoints on forward but you don't do that with just having one issue and that's one vote and you can't have an forward is for us to engage in full process that the senate is fully capable of doing and desirous of doing and i think this would be important as well to our troops in the field to have a full debate on this topic and i aside from the war effort and i know that's the one that really needs to and does occupier time but a good friend of mine just recently passed away congressman charlie norwood charlie and i came in together in the house representatives in the nine hundred ninety four election cycle he recently passed away due to complications and is a liver from a long battle that he had with pulmonary fibrosis and just difficulties that he had  legislative accomplishments are significant and those are in the record and well known what i want to talk about just the person because he was a beautiful man as a dentist he had served in vietnam as a as a dentist he had this beautiful folksy way of presenting a tough topic so that he would he would boil down the essence of a difficult topic and a folksy sentence or two and he would listen to it you go you know i e was a dedicated public servant even as he felt that the government had grown too big and was taking over too much authority reminds me that as we leave these places and we all will  when you look back on it there's a legislative career that's there there are a number of legislative items that each of us are associated with the cares and concerns and passions that we have of the day but there's also the person that's there and the soul and the mr president when we come back from the recess we're going to turn our attention to the nine eleven commission recommendations which have been enacted by the house i want to discuss what i would call about an issue that i hope will come up when we discuss the nine eleven commission recommendations and that has to do with the so called real id card a national id card this is a piece of this is a law that was inactive in two thousand and five in early two thousand and five and the house passed legislation that would require states to turn one hundred ninety million driver's license international identification cards with state taxpayers paying most of the costs mr president i'm not very much of a prognosticator my predictions have never been all that accurate but at the time of that passage i objected to that the first thing wrong with the real i d law was that the house stuck the law into a appropriations bill that supported our troops in iraq and sent it over to the senate so none of us wanted to slow down support for our troops in iraq while we debated id cards so it was stuck in there and we passed it but the second and larger problem with what the house did two years ago or which we agreed to then and it became law is that states not only got to create the idea of id cards as i said then they will likely end up paying the bill and i said to my colleagues at that time we had a republican congress this is one more of the unfunded federal mandates that we republicans promise to end well now we moved ahead about two years and i believe i've turned out to be right about that just the other day the main the main lead slate you became the first state to approve the reds a resolution urging congress to overturn the law before it takes effect on the states in may of two thousand and eight only four of the hundred eighty six maine lawmakers voted no in the following other states there are bills according to usa today that are considering asking us to overturn the law hawaii georgia massachusetts new mexico oklahoma vermont and washington one reason they're asking us to overturn it because according to the national governors association implementing the law will will cost more than eleven billion dollars over five years we have provided forty million dollars of the eleven billion dollars  unfunded federal mandates the presiding officer is a former state official and i don't know how if he had the same feelings when he was in his state of colorado but nothing used to make me mad or when i was governor of tennessee then for some group of congressmen to come up with a big idea turned into law hold a big press conference take credit for it and send the bill to the states to play and then that same congressman would usually be back home making a lincoln day speech bragging about local control and how he defended local control but i'm afraid that's what we've got with real i d it sounds pretty good maybe to say ok we've got a war against terrorism and we've got illegal immigration and other immigration issues and so we need some sort of identification card which will make it possible for us to do a better job of fighting terrorists and imposing the rule of law on our border that sounds good mr press it sounds good but there's a right way to do it and a wrong way to do that here's here would here's what we should have done and what i hope we will do i hope next week after next that when senator collins of maine comes to the floor which i hope she will and offers an amendment that will in effect set up a thoughtful process for first delaying the implementation of this bill and second give us a chance to consider all of its ramifications out we will adopt it as part of the nine eleven commission words less give the idea of a national identification card the kind of thoughtful attention it deserves in the united states senate number one we should do it because it's a huge break with our tradition of liberty in this country we don't have to look very far around the world south africa would be the first place to look to see of the abuse that a national identification card can can have in south africa it was used to classify people according to race everybody had to have one everybody had to carry around in this age of technology in a country that values liberty above everything else well there are a lot of questions about whether we should governor of tennessee act wife vetoed the photo driver's license which we all now carry around in our in our pockets i did that first because i thought it was an infringement on civil liberties and i did a second because i thought what would happen was that we'd have lines of people all the way around the block waiting i get their photo id cards it still happens sometimes but i was gradually overruled by the state legislature and we got an id card what helped my getting overruled was i showed up at the white house wants to see the presidential governors conference and they asked to see my photo id and i said i don't have one they said why not i said because i've been told it and i had to get ballots for by the governor of georgia in order to get in the white house that was an i d an eighty's now we all have national we have photo id cards in the real impetus behind that was from law enforcement people who said well this will help us with check cashing and another identification so file as a liberty loving country we say we don't want a national i d card the same time we have allowed to grow up in our country a de facto national i d card which is called a state driver's license we have about one hundred ninety we go around and not just using them to prove that we can drive but we use them to get on airplanes we use them to cancel checks we use them to get a passport and they're not an effective id card so i have mr president reluctantly come to the conclusion despite the fact that i vetoed those early id cards in tennessee photo driver's license that after nine eleven one way our world has changed is that we do need a national i d card now maybe our discussion in committees which would show that we don't want one but that we want to authorize two or three forms of identification cards which meet certain standards which can be used for different ways for example there could be a travel car that one could use to get on an airplane and if you had that travel card that allowed you to get on the airplane why it was then you might use it for other purposes well just as we've come to use a driver's license in that way or we might use the passport about a quarter of americans i believe have passports sixty eight million americans have passports twenty to twenty five percent so that's a form of an id card not as many as one hundred  ninety six million driver's licenses there's the social security card my initial instinct is that a a a social security card that had the proper technology attached to it would be the wisest idea