SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - July 22, 2004)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Pages S8768-S8776]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS

                                 ______
                                 

 SENATE RESOLUTION 415--TO AUTHORIZE THE PRODUCTION OF RECORDS BY THE 
     PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON 
                          GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

  Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following 
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

                              S. Res. 415

       Whereas, during the 106th and 107th Congresses, the 
     Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on 
     Governmental Affairs conducted an investigation into money 
     laundering activities in the U.S. financial services sector, 
     including examinations of money laundering activities in 
     private banking, correspondent banking, and the securities 
     industry;
       Whereas, by agreement to Senate Resolution 77, 107th 
     Congress, the Senate authorized the Chairman and Ranking 
     Minority Member of the Subcommittee, acting jointly, to 
     provide to law enforcement officials, legislative bodies, 
     regulatory agencies, and other entities or individuals duly 
     authorized by federal, state, or foreign governments, records 
     of the Subcommittee's investigation into the use of 
     correspondent banking for the purpose of money laundering;
       Whereas, during the present Congress, the Subcommittee has 
     been conducting a followup to its earlier money laundering 
     investigation to evaluate the enforcement and effectiveness 
     of key statutory anti-money laundering provisions, using 
     Riggs Bank of the District of Columbia as a case history;
       Whereas, the Subcommittee is asking authorization to 
     provide records of its followup investigation in response to 
     requests from law enforcement officials, legislative bodies, 
     regulatory agencies, and foreign agencies and officials;
       Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United 
     States and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no 
     evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate 
     can, by administrative or judicial process, be taken from 
     such control or possession but by permission of the Senate;
       Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or 
     in the possession of the Senate is needed for the promotion 
     of justice, the Senate will take such action as will promote 
     the ends of justice consistent with the privileges of the 
     Senate: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of 
     the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee 
     on Governmental Affairs, acting jointly, are authorized to 
     provide to law enforcement officials, legislative bodies, 
     regulatory agencies, and other entities or individuals duly 
     authorized by federal, state, or foreign governments, records 
     of the Subcommittee's case study investigation into the 
     enforcement and effectiveness of statutory anti-money 
     laundering provisions.

[[Page S8769]]

                                 ______
                                 

SENATE RESOLUTION 416--CONGRATULATING THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, 
    FULLERTON BASEBALL TEAM ON WINNING THE 2004 COLLEGE WORLD SERIES

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer) submitted the following 
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

                              S. Res. 416

       Whereas on June 27, 2004, the California State University, 
     Fullerton (``Fullerton'') Titans won the 2004 College World 
     Series;
       Whereas the 3 to 2 victory completed a 2 to 0 sweep of the 
     heavily favored Texas Longhorns;
       Whereas the Fullerton team opened the season with 15 wins 
     and 16 losses, then continued on to win 32 of the next 38 
     games, finishing with 47 wins and 22 losses in the regular 
     season;
       Whereas the Fullerton team won with the superlative 
     pitching of Jason Windsor, who threw a complete game and was 
     named Most Outstanding Player of the College World Series;
       Whereas Kurt Suzuki broke a 2 and 20 slump with the game 
     winning RBI single;
       Whereas the Fullerton roster also includes Joe Turgeon, 
     Justin Turner, Clark Hardman, Mark Carroll, Blake Davis, 
     Brett Pill, Ricky Romero, J.D. McCauley, Mike Martinez, Neil 
     Walton, Ronnie Prettyman, Eric Hale, Evan McArthur, Brandon 
     Tripp, Shawn Scobee, Scott Sarver, Bobby Andrews, Felipe 
     Garcia, Ryan Schreppel, Danny Dorn, Armando Carrasco, Jon 
     Wilhite, Nolan Bruyninckx, Lauren Gagnier, John Curtis, Evan 
     Myrick, Dustin Miller, Vance Otake, Eric Echevarria, P.J. 
     Pilittere, Sergio Pedroza, Geoff Tesmer, John Estes, Mark 
     Davidson, and Vinnie Pestano;
       Whereas Fullerton Coach George Horton was competing against 
     his mentor, former Fullerton coach Augie Garrido, who led the 
     Titans to 3 previous national championships;
       Whereas the coaching staff of George Horton, Dave Serrano, 
     Rick Vanderhook, and Chad Baum deserve much credit for the 
     accomplishments of their team;
       Whereas the Fullerton baseball team has won national 
     championships in 1979, 1984, 1995, and 2004, making it the 
     only team to win a national championship in each of the past 
     4 decades;
       Whereas the students, alumni, faculty, and supporters of 
     Fullerton are to be congratulated for their commitment and 
     pride in their institution: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Senate--
       (1) congratulates the California State University, 
     Fullerton Titans on their College World Series championship;
       (2) recognizes the achievements of the team;
       (3) requests that the President recognize the outstanding 
     accomplishments of the team; and
       (4) directs the Secretary of the Senate to make available a 
     copy of this resolution to California State University, 
     Fullerton for appropriate display and to transmit an enrolled 
     copy of this resolution to the 2004 California State 
     University, Fullerton team.
                                 ______
                                 

 SENATE RESOLUTION 417--CONGRATULATING THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT 
    LOS ANGELES WOMEN'S SOFTBALL TEAM ON WINNING THE 2004 NATIONAL 
              COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION CHAMPIONSHIP

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer) submitted the following 
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

                              S. Res. 417

       Whereas on May 31, 2004, the University of California at 
     Los Angeles (``UCLA'') women's softball team won the 2004 
     National Collegiate Athletic Association (``NCAA'') 
     championship;
       Whereas the 3 to 1 victory completed another UCLA softball 
     title run, this time over the in-State rival, the California 
     Bears;
       Whereas the victory marked UCLA's tenth NCAA title in team 
     history;
       Whereas the UCLA women's softball team ended the season 
     with an impressive 47 to 9 mark;
       Whereas UCLA trailed 1 to 0 for the first 5 innings, before 
     Claire Sua tied the game with a solo home run;
       Whereas freshman pinch hitter Kristen Dedmon hit a crucial 
     2-RBI single to give UCLA the lead;
       Whereas senior pitcher Keira Goerl became just the second 
     pitcher in NCAA Division I history to win multiple title 
     games;
       Whereas the UCLA roster also includes Caitlin Benyi, Jaisa 
     Creps, Lisa Dodd, Andrea Duran, Alissa Eno, Tara Henry, 
     Ashley Herrera, Whitney Holum, Julie Hoshizaki, Jodie 
     Legaspi, Stephanie Ramos, Nicole Sandberg, Amanda Simpson, 
     Shana Stewart, Michelle Turner, and Emily Zaplatosch;
       Whereas the coaching staff of Sue Enquist, Kelly Inouye-
     Perez, and Gina Vecchione deserve much credit for the 
     accomplishments of their team;
       Whereas the UCLA team is the first team to defend its NCAA 
     title since 1997;
       Whereas UCLA has won 10 of a possible 23 NCAA Division I 
     softball championships; and
       Whereas the students, alumni, faculty, and supporters of 
     UCLA are to be congratulated for their commitment and pride 
     in their institution: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Senate--
       (1) congratulates the University of California at Los 
     Angeles Bruins on winning the 2004 National Collegiate 
     Athletic Association Championship;
       (2) recognizes the achievements of the team;
       (3) requests that the President recognize the outstanding 
     accomplishments of the team; and
       (4) directs the Secretary of the Senate to make available a 
     copy of this resolution to University of California at Los 
     Angeles for appropriate display and to transmit an enrolled 
     copy of this resolution to the 2004 University of California 
     at Los Angeles women's softball team.
                                 ______
                                 

    SENATE RESOLUTION 418--DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 2004 AS ``NATIONAL 
                   PROSTATE CANCER AWARENESS MONTH''

  Mr. SESSIONS (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Allen, Mr. Bayh, Mr. 
Brownback, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Burns, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Corzine, Mr. 
Crapo, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Inouye, 
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Miller, Mr. 
Nelson of Florida, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Shelby, and Mr. Wyden) submitted 
the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

                              S. Res. 418

       Whereas countless families in the United States live with 
     prostate cancer;
       Whereas 1 in 6 men in the United States will be diagnosed 
     with prostate cancer in his lifetime;
       Whereas over the past decade, prostate cancer has been the 
     most commonly diagnosed non-skin cancer and the second most 
     common cancer killer of men in the United States;
       Whereas over 230,000 men in the United States will be 
     diagnosed with prostate cancer and 29,900 men in the United 
     States will die of prostate cancer in 2004, according to 
     American Cancer Society estimates;
       Whereas 30 percent of new cases occur in men under the age 
     of 65;
       Whereas a man in the United States turns 50 years old about 
     every 14 seconds, increasing the occurrence of cancer and, 
     particularly, of prostate cancer;
       Whereas African-American males suffer a prostate cancer 
     incidence rate as much as 60 percent higher than White males 
     and have double the mortality rates;
       Whereas obesity is a significant predictor of prostate 
     cancer severity and death;
       Whereas if a man in the United States has 1 family member 
     diagnosed with prostate cancer, he has double the risk of 
     prostate cancer, if he has 2 family members with such 
     diagnosis, he has 5 times the risk, and if he has 3 family 
     members with such diagnosis, he has a 97-percent risk of 
     prostate cancer;
       Whereas screening by both digital rectal examination and 
     prostate specific antigen blood test can diagnose the disease 
     in earlier and more treatable stages and reduce prostate 
     cancer mortality;
       Whereas ongoing research promises to further improvements 
     in prostate cancer prevention, early detection, and 
     treatments; and
       Whereas educating people in the United States, including 
     health care providers, about prostate cancer and early 
     detection strategies is crucial to saving men's lives and 
     preserving and protecting families: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Senate--
       (1) designates September 2004 as ``National Prostate Cancer 
     Awareness Month'';
       (2) declares that the Federal Government has a 
     responsibility to--
       (A) raise awareness about the importance of screening 
     methods and treatment of prostate cancer;
       (B) increase research funding that is commensurate with the 
     burden of the disease so that the causes of prostate cancer, 
     and improved screening, treatments, and a cure for prostate 
     cancer, may be discovered; and
       (C) continue to consider ways for improving the access to, 
     and quality of, health care services for detecting and 
     treating prostate cancer; and
       (3) requests that the President issue a proclamation 
     calling on the people of the United States, interested 
     groups, and affected persons to--
       (A) promote awareness of prostate cancer;
       (B) take an active role in the fight to end the devastating 
     affects of prostate cancer on individuals, their families, 
     and the economy; and
       (C) observe the month of September 2004 with appropriate 
     ceremonies and activities.

[[Page S8770]]

                                 ______
                                 

SENATE RESOLUTION 419--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE WITH RESPECT 
TO THE CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT AND THE SMOOTH TRANSITION OF EXECUTIVE 
                                 POWER

  Mr. CORNYN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
the Committee on Rules and Administration:

                              S. Res. 419

       Whereas members of the Senate, regardless of political 
     party affiliation, agree that the American people deserve a 
     Government that is failsafe and foolproof, and that 
     terrorists should never have the ability to disrupt the 
     operations of the Government;
       Whereas continuity of governmental operations in the wake 
     of a catastrophic terrorist attack remains a pressing issue 
     of national importance before the United States Congress;
       Whereas, at a minimum, terrorists should never have the 
     ability, by launching a terrorist attack, to change the 
     political party that is in control of the Government, 
     regardless of which party is in power;
       Whereas, whenever control of the White House shall change 
     from one political party to another, the outgoing President 
     and the incoming President should work together, and with the 
     Senate to the extent determined appropriate by the Senate, to 
     ensure a smooth transition of executive power, in the 
     interest of the American people;
       Whereas, under the current presidential succession statute 
     in section 19 of title 3, United States Code, the members of 
     the cabinet, defined as the heads of the statutory executive 
     departments under section 101 of title 5, United States Code, 
     fall within the line of succession to the presidency;
       Whereas, during previous presidential transition periods, 
     the incoming President has had to serve with cabinet members 
     from the prior administration, including subcabinet officials 
     from the prior administration acting as cabinet members, for 
     at least some period of time;
       Whereas the Constitution vests the appointment power of 
     executive branch officials in the President, by and with the 
     advice and consent of the Senate, and nothing in this 
     resolution is intended to alter either the constitutional 
     power of the President or the constitutional function of the 
     Senate with regard to the confirmation of presidential 
     nominees;
       Whereas an incoming President cannot exercise the 
     constitutional powers of the President, in order to ensure a 
     smooth transition of Government, until noon on the 20th day 
     of January, pursuant to the terms of the twentieth amendment 
     to the Constitution;
       Whereas cooperation between the incoming and the outgoing 
     President is therefore the only way to ensure a smooth 
     transition of Government;
       Whereas Congress throughout history has acted consistently 
     and in a bipartisan fashion to encourage measures to ensure 
     the smooth transition of executive power from one President 
     to another, such as through the enactment of the Presidential 
     Transition Act of 1963 (3 U.S.C. 102 note; Public Law 88-277) 
     and subsequent amendments;
       Whereas Congress has previously concluded that ``[t]he 
     national interest requires'' that ``the orderly transfer of 
     the executive power in connection with the expiration of the 
     term of office of a President and the inauguration of a new 
     President . . . be accomplished so as to assure continuity in 
     the faithful execution of the laws and in the conduct of the 
     affairs of the Federal Government, both domestic and 
     foreign'' under the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 (3 
     U.S.C. 102 note; Public Law 88-277);
       Whereas Congress has further concluded that ``[a]ny 
     disruption occasioned by the transfer of the executive power 
     could produce results detrimental to the safety and well-
     being of the United States and its people'' under the 
     Presidential Transition Act of 1963 (3 U.S.C. 102 note; 
     Public Law 88-277); and
       Whereas Congress has previously expressed its intent ``that 
     appropriate actions be authorized and taken to avoid or 
     minimize any disruption'' and ``that all officers of the 
     Government so conduct the affairs of the Government for which 
     they exercise responsibility and authority as (1) to be 
     mindful of problems occasioned by transitions in the office 
     of the President, (2) to take appropriate lawful steps to 
     avoid or minimize disruptions that might be occasioned by the 
     transfer of the executive power, and (3) otherwise to promote 
     orderly transitions in the office of President'' under the 
     Presidential Transition Act of 1963 (3 U.S.C. 102 note; 
     Public Law 88-277): Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, that it is the sense of the Senate that during 
     the period preceding the end of a term of office in which a 
     President will not be serving a succeeding term--
       (1) that President should consider submitting the 
     nominations of individuals to the Senate who are selected by 
     the President-elect for offices that fall within the line of 
     succession;
       (2) the Senate should consider conducting confirmation 
     proceedings and votes on the nominations described under 
     paragraph (1), to the extent determined appropriate by the 
     Senate, between January 3 and January 20 before the 
     Inauguration; and
       (3) that President should consider agreeing to sign and 
     deliver commissions for all approved nominations on January 
     20 before the Inauguration to ensure continuity of 
     Government.

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday I rose to address this body in 
support of a Senate resolution on a profoundly nonpartisan issue. As 
President Bush and the United States government continue their fight to 
protect the American way of life in the war against terrorism, they 
have also been fighting another battle to protect American ideals and 
principles--a battle against human trafficking and slavery. Most 
Americans would be shocked to learn that the institution of slavery--an 
institution that hundreds of thousands of Americans shed precious blood 
to destroy--continues to persist today--not just around the world, but 
hidden in communities across America. This is a new fight against an 
old evil. It is the most fundamental civil rights issue of our time.
  I was pleased to work with my lead Democrat co-sponsor, Senator 
Schumer, as well as with Senators Graham of South Carolina, Leahy, and 
Clinton, to introduce and obtain full Senate approval of Senate 
Resolution 414. That resolution expressed strong support for the 
Justice Department's recent efforts to combat human trafficking, under 
the leadership of the Civil Rights Division. The resolution noted that 
the Justice Department recently held its first-ever National Conference 
on Human Trafficking in Tampa, Florida, where it announced a new 
comprehensive model state anti-trafficking law. The resolution 
encouraged states to consider adopting such laws where they do not 
currently exist.
  Today, I rise in support of a Senate resolution on another profoundly 
nonpartisan issue--the preservation of our system of government in the 
wake of a catastrophic terrorist attack. Just as most Americans would 
be shocked to learn about the incidence of forced labor and sexual 
servitude in communities across the country, I believe most Americans 
would be shocked to learn that our laws are profoundly inadequate to 
ensure continuity of governmental operations in the wake of a 
catastrophic terrorist attack.
  I have spent a great deal of time and energy this past year on the 
issue of continuity of government. Last September, I chaired two 
hearings to examine continuity of government problems in the two 
political branches of government. On September 9, I chaired a hearing 
of the Senate Judiciary Committee to examine continuity problems in the 
Congress, and on September 16, Senator Lott and I co-chaired a joint 
hearing of the Senate Rules and Judiciary Committees to look at 
problems in our system of Presidential succession.
  These are not partisan issues. These are imminently nonpartisan 
issues, and so I was pleased to work on those hearings with my 
distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle--Senator Leahy, 
the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senator 
Feingold, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on 
the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights, which I am honored 
to chair.

  In November, I introduced Senate Joint Resolution 23, a proposed 
constitutional amendment to ensure continuity of Congress. 
Constitutional legal experts across the political spectrum have 
recognized that our current laws are inadequate to ensure continuity of 
Congressional operations in the wake of a catastrophic terrorist 
attack, and that only a constitutional amendment can ensure that the 
American people will never have to suffer under martial law.
  The constitutional amendment I introduced implements the 
recommendations of the bipartisan blue ribbon Continuity of Government 
Commission, sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute and the 
Brookings Institution. That commission is led by two of our nation's 
truly most distinguished American statesmen--its honorary co-chairmen, 
former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford--as well as by its two 
distinguished co-chairmen, former Senator Alan Simpson and former White 
House Counsel Lloyd Cutler. The commission is comprised of former high-
ranking government officials of both parties, and ably staffed by 
Norman Ornstein, John Fortier, and Thomas Mann.
  I know that there are sharp divisions in the House over what kinds of 
continuity measures to adopt--whether

[[Page S8771]]

emergency interim appointments are appropriate and necessary, or if 
expedited special elections alone are sufficient. It is important to 
recognize that my amendment takes no position in that debate. My 
amendment would not compel either chamber of Congress to adopt any 
particular methodology for redressing continuity problems. It would 
simply empower Congress to adopt legislation to guarantee continuity of 
Congressional operations--power that Congress does not currently 
possess. It is modeled after Article II of the Constitution, which 
empowers Congress to adopt legislation to provide for continuity of the 
Presidency.
  On January 27 of this year, I chaired a hearing of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee so that legal experts could examine the need for 
Senate Joint Resolution 23. And on that same day, I introduced 
implementing legislation (S. 2031), entitled the Continuity of the 
Senate Act of 2004. Continuity problems affect both the House and the 
Senate. Indeed, the Senate arguably faces the most dire problem of 
all--if a majority of Senators are incapacitated, Congress could be 
disabled for as long as four years, the amount of time it takes to 
elect a new majority of Senators. The Continuity of the Senate Act of 
2004 would implement the constitutional amendment proposed by Senate 
Joint Resolution 23. It would simply empower each state to adopt 
continuity measures for their senators in case of incapacity--following 
the model of the 17th Amendment with respect to Senate vacancies. I am 
pleased that Senators Dodd and Lott agreed to serve as original co-
sponsors of this legislation. After all, they are the ranking Democrat 
and Republican, respectively, on the Senate Rules Committee--the 
committee that would have jurisdiction to consider the Continuity of 
the Senate Act, in the event that the constitutional amendment I have 
proposed is approved by two-thirds of the Congress and three-fourths of 
the states.
  On May 13, I convened a meeting of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee 
on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights--the subcommittee 
that possesses jurisdiction over constitutional amendments. I am 
pleased that the subcommittee approved Senate Joint Resolution 23 on a 
bipartisan vote. I am particularly pleased that the resolution was 
supported by my distinguished colleague, the subcommittee's ranking 
Democrat, Senator Feingold. I know from working with him these past 
several months that he is no fan of constitutional amendments. And of 
course, everyone in this chamber agrees that the Constitution should 
not be amended casually. Yet he recognized--as have constitutional 
legal experts across the political spectrum--that the only way to 
ensure continuity of Congressional operations is a constitutional 
amendment. I look forward to working with Senator Hatch, the chairman 
of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in coming weeks and months so that 
the full committee can consider the merits of, and the need for, Senate 
Joint Resolution 23.

  Of course, Congress is not the only institution that faces serious 
problems of continuity of operations. Our laws are also inadequate with 
respect to Presidential succession. Article II of the Constitution 
gives Congress the power to enact laws to address Presidential 
succession--just as my proposed constitutional amendment would give 
Congress such power with respect to continuity of Congress. Yet legal 
experts across the political spectrum have written that the current 
Presidential succession statute is unconstitutional and unworkable.
  Accordingly, I introduced legislation in February, right before 
President's Day, to reform the Presidential succession statute (S. 
2073). That same day, I also introduced a Senate resolution (S. Con. 
Res. 89) to establish a protocol for ensuring proper transition between 
an outgoing President and a newly elected President. Both measures were 
cosponsored by Senator Lott, the chairman of the Rules Committee, which 
exercises jurisdiction over such matters.
  I am pleased to introduce a more robust version of that same 
resolution today for the Senate's consideration, in the form of a 
Senate resolution that requires the consent of only this body. It is an 
important step to ensuring that, no matter what, at a minimum, 
terrorists will never be able to determine, by launching a terrorist 
strike, which party controls the White House.
  Imagine if you will that it is January 20, the inauguration date for 
a new incoming President. The sun is shining, and the American people 
are watching. The new President and Vice President sit on the center 
platform just steps away from the Capitol Rotunda, joined by American 
and foreign dignitaries. Leaders of both Houses of Congress sit nearby 
as well. It is a beautiful day--but as national security and continuity 
of government experts have long recognized, it is also a window of 
vulnerability. If terrorists launched a successful strike on 
Inauguration Day, it could wipe out not only our new President, but 
also the first three people who are in the line of Presidential 
succession under our current Presidential succession statute--the Vice 
President, the Speaker of the House, and the President pro tempore of 
the Senate.
  What happens next?
  Well, imagine that the election of the prior year had resulted in a 
change of political party control of the White House. During previous 
Presidential transition periods, a new incoming President has had to 
serve with Cabinet members from the prior administration--including 
sub-Cabinet officials from the prior administration acting as Cabinet 
members--for at least some period of time. That means that, in the 
event of a successful inaugural day attack, the official who could rise 
to become Acting President, perhaps serving for four full years, could 
very well be a member of the outgoing administration--indeed, a member 
of the political party that the American people expelled from office at 
the most recent election.
  The resolution I introduce today would help prevent this from 
happening. As the resolution acknowledges, members of the Senate, 
regardless of political party affiliation, agree that the American 
people deserve a Government that is failsafe and foolproof. We agree 
that terrorists should never have the ability to disrupt the operations 
of the Government. We agree that continuity of governmental operations 
in the wake of a catastrophic terrorist attack remains a pressing issue 
of national importance before the United States Congress. And we agree 
that, at a minimum, terrorists should never have the ability, by 
launching a terrorist attack, to change the political party that is in 
control of the Government--a principle that applies regardless of which 
party is in power.
  An incoming President, of course, cannot exercise the constitutional 
powers of the President, in order to ensure a smooth transition of 
Government, until noon on the 20th day of January, pursuant to the 
terms of the Twentieth Amendment of the Constitution. Accordingly, 
cooperation between the incoming and the outgoing President is the only 
way to ensure a smooth transition of government.
  Whenever control of the White House shall change from one political 
party to another, the outgoing President and the incoming President 
should work together, and with the Senate to the extent deemed 
appropriate by the Senate, to ensure a smooth transition of executive 
power, in the interest of the American people. Accordingly, the 
resolution establishes a non-binding protocol--a protocol with three 
parts.
  First, the resolution states that an outgoing President should 
consider submitting the nominations of individuals to the Senate who 
are selected by the President-elect for offices that fall within the 
line of succession. Under the current Presidential succession statute 
(3 U.S.C. Sec. 19), that means the members of the Cabinet, defined as 
the heads of the statutory executive departments (5 U.S.C. Sec. 101).
  Second, the resolution provides that the Senate should consider 
conducting confirmation proceedings and votes on Cabinet nominations, 
to the extent deemed appropriate by the Senate, between January 3 and 
January 20 before the Inauguration. Of course, nothing in the 
resolution purports to alter the constitutional powers of either the 
President or the Senate, and indeed, nothing in this resolution could 
constitutionally do so.
  And third, the resolution encourages the outgoing President to 
consider agreeing to sign and deliver commissions for all approved 
nominations on January 20 before the Inauguration--all to ensure 
continuity of government.

[[Page S8772]]

  I am pleased that this resolution has received such strong support 
amongst experts in the fields of continuity of government and 
constitutional law. This is a truly nonpartisan effort, so I am 
particularly pleased that the resolution is so enthusiastically 
supported by constitutional legal experts such as Walter Dellinger, 
Cass Sunstein, Laurence Tribe, Michael Gerhardt, and Howard Wasserman. 
Rather than repeat their words here, I will simply ask unanimous 
consent that their letters be included in the Congressional Record at 
the close of my remarks.
  Throughout history, Congress has acted consistently and in a 
bipartisan fashion to encourage measures to ensure the smooth 
transition of Executive power from one President to another. I think, 
for example, of the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, and its 
subsequent amendments. In that Act, Congress concluded that ``[t]he 
national interest requires'' that ``the orderly transfer of the 
executive power in connection with the expiration of the term of office 
of a President and the inauguration of a new President . . . be 
accomplished so as to assure continuity in the faithful execution of 
the laws and in the conduct of the affairs of the Federal Government, 
both domestic and foreign.'' Congress further concluded that ``[a]ny 
disruption occasioned by the transfer of the executive power could 
produce results detrimental to the safety and well-being of the United 
States and its people.'' Accordingly, Congress expressed its intent 
``that appropriate actions be authorized and taken to avoid or minimize 
any disruption'' and ``that all officers of the Government so conduct 
the affairs of the Government for which they exercise responsibility 
and authority as (1) to be mindful of problems occasioned by 
transitions in the office of President, (2) to take appropriate lawful 
steps to avoid or minimize disruptions that might be occasioned by the 
transfer of the executive power, and (3) otherwise to promote orderly 
transitions in the office of President.''
  Close cooperation between an incoming President and an outgoing 
President is the only way to ensure a smooth transition of government. 
So this evening, just days away from the first of our nation's two 
great political conventions, I am pleased to introduce a resolution to 
ensure continuity of government during a unique window of 
vulnerability--the Presidential inaugural period. And I look forward to 
further debate and discussion on other legislation to ensure the 
continuity of our national government.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           Harvard University,

                                     Cambridge, MA, July 22, 2004.
     Hon. John Cornyn,
     Chairman, U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the 
         Constitution, Civil Rights & Property Rights, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Senator Cornyn: I am writing to commend you for 
     drafting the Resolution whose text you have shared with me 
     expressing the sense of the Senate with respect to continuity 
     of government and the smooth transition of Executive power. I 
     write not as a friend and supporter of Senators Kerry and 
     Edwards, whose election this November to the presidency and 
     vice presidency I believe you know I strongly favor, but as a 
     citizen of this nation and, for more than 30 years, a 
     professor of constitutional law who is devoted to the success 
     of its government of, by, and for the people,
       The Resolution I have read is a non-binding measure that 
     creates no obligations or rights and imposes no restrictions. 
     For this reason among others, it is fully consistent with the 
     Constitution of the United States. Unlike some such non-
     binding measures, however, this one seems to me extremely 
     wise. It entails no posturing, and the recommendations it 
     makes for the transition from an incumbent president's 
     administration to that of a newly elected president who is 
     not the incumbent--a situation I fervently hope we will 
     confront between November 2, 2004, and January 20, 2005--seem 
     to me not only sensible but potentially crucial, especially 
     during a period of our history when fanatic international 
     terrorism threatens to disrupt our political and governmental 
     processes. The recommendations are such that a non-partisan, 
     good-government perspective would commend this Resolution to 
     the entire Senate, and I strongly support its adoption.
           Yours truly,
     Laurence Tribe.
                                  ____



                             University of Chicago Law School,

                                       Chicago, IL, July 22, 2004.
     Senator John Cornyn,
     Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil 
         Rights, and Property Rights, Senate Committee on the 
         Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cornyn: I am writing to express support, from 
     the standpoint of constitutional structure and good 
     governance, for the proposed resolution involving continuity 
     in government, which would contain the following language:
       ``Resolved, that it is the sense of the Senate that during 
     the period preceding the end of a term of office in which a 
     President will not be serving a succeeding term--
       (1) that President should consider submitting the 
     nominations of individuals to the Senate who are selected by 
     the President-elect for offices that fall within the line of 
     succession;
       (2) the Senate should consider conducting confirmation 
     proceedings and votes on the nominations described under 
     paragraph (1), to the extent deemed appropriate by the 
     Senate, between January 3 and January 20 before the 
     Inauguration; and
       (3) that President should consider agreeing to sign and 
     deliver commissions for all approved nominations on January 
     20 before the Inauguration, to ensure continuity of 
     Government''
       The significant advantage of the suggested process is that 
     in the event of terrorist attack or other large-scale 
     disruption, it would reduce the risk that there would be 
     ``gaps'' in the personnel and operation of the Executive 
     Branch. If the process operates as suggested, then there 
     would be no period in which certain high-level offices (those 
     that fall within the line of succession) lack personnel of 
     the President's choosing. A disadvantage of the suggested 
     process is that it would put perhaps unwelcome time pressure 
     on both the President-elect and the Senate--while also 
     putting the sitting President in a mildly awkward position. 
     Nonetheless, the text of the Resolution is not rigid 
     (``should consider''), and there are large virtues, for the 
     President-elect and the Senate alike, of providing an early, 
     expeditious process for ensuring that the President's Cabinet 
     is in place. The process thus promises to reduce a serious 
     danger without compromising important structural values.
       One of the most central goals of our constitutional system 
     is to create an energetic and unitary executive branch, one 
     that is capable of prompt and expeditious action. See The 
     Federalist No. 70; E. Corwin, The President--Office and 
     Powers 3-30 (1957). This resolution, at once bipartisan and 
     nonpartisan, would serve to promote that goal under 
     contemporary conditions.
           Sincerely,
     Cass R. Sunstein.
                                  ____



                                        O'Melveny & Myers LLP,

                                    Washington, DC, July 22, 2004.
     Re: ``Smooth Transition'' Proposed Legislation.

     Hon. John Cornyn,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cornyn: On rare occasions a suggestion comes 
     along that is truly a good government idea. The ``smooth 
     transition'' resolution you have proposed is a premier 
     example. It is a simple idea that would strengthen our 
     government, regardless of party and regardless of ideology. 
     To have the outgoing President, in his final weeks in office, 
     submit to the Senate the nominations of those individuals the 
     new President-elect has chosen for the cabinet is not merely 
     a convenience: it is essential in an era in which our 
     government must be ever vigilant.
       I served in the White House in February, March and April of 
     1993. As you will recall, the position of Attorney General 
     was not filled in a timely fashion. In my view this resulted 
     in serious mistakes being made, as the President turned to 
     the White House staff for advice and legal opinions that 
     would have come from the Department of Justice had there been 
     a functioning Attorney General. Because of the great and 
     steady influence of career lawyers at Justice, the advice 
     from that Department is generally more solid and consistent 
     over time than a President receives when he has to rely on 
     the White House to carry out duties that should be performed 
     by the Attorney General. So I know first hand how important 
     it is to have new Department Heads in place at the moment the 
     new President is sworn in to office.
       Your amendment does more than facilitate the smooth 
     functioning of government. It sets the right tone at a time 
     when so many partisan battles divide us in spirit. Our 
     parties should compete vigorously on policy and present 
     alternative visions and plans to the American people. But 
     then we should facilitate rather than inhibit the capacity of 
     the prevailing party to do the job the American people have 
     chosen them to do. This is a sentiment I expressed four years 
     ago in the pages of The Wall Street Journal as the new 
     administration of President George W. Bush came to power. I 
     am taking the liberty of including a copy of ``The Wrong Way 
     to Oppose'' from the Journal for January 10, 2001. I wish I 
     had thought of your idea and included it in that piece.
       I hope your resolution is adopted with great bi-partisan 
     support. Best wishes to you.
           Very truly yours,
                                              Walter E. Dellinger,
                                         of O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

[[Page S8773]]

                                     The College of William & Mary


                                                School of Law,

                                  Williamsburg, VA, July 22, 2004.
     Hon. John Cornyn,
     U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the 
         Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cornyn: I write to express my support for the 
     resolution you are introducing suggesting that the President 
     and Senate should each consider taking particular actions 
     later this year to ensure a smooth transition and the 
     continuity of government. I share your concerns about 
     possibly crippling attacks against our government by 
     terrorists and your efforts to ameliorate the effects of any 
     such attacks. I believe your proposed resolution expresses a 
     noble ideal for the President and the Senate to work together 
     as smoothly and quickly as possible to ensure that the 
     administration is fully staffed and operational during the 
     critical period after the 2004 presidential election and 
     before Inauguration Day in January 2005.
       I appreciate that resolutions on presidential nominations 
     touch upon extremely sensitive constitutional terrain. The 
     Appointments Clause of the Constitution vests the President 
     with the authority to nominate certain high-ranking 
     officials, and presidents have fiercely protected this 
     prerogative from encroachment by the Senate. The Appointments 
     Clause also vests the Senate with the authority to provide 
     its ``Advice and Consent'' on presidential nominations, and 
     the Senate has defended this authority from interference by 
     any other branch. I believe your resolution has merit in part 
     because it accords due respect for the respective 
     appointments authorities of the President and the Senate. It 
     is non-binding. It does not require either branch to do 
     anything it prefers not to do. It shows due respect for the 
     autonomy of the President and the Senate in exercising their 
     respective authorities over federal appointments. Separation 
     of powers problems arise when one branch encroaches upon, or 
     seeks to usurp, the authority of another branch. But, to its 
     credit, the resolution avoids such problems by both 
     acknowledging that its purpose is not to ``alter the 
     constitutional power of the President or the constitutional 
     function of the Senate with regard to the confirmation of 
     Presidential nominations'' and by calling upon the President 
     and the Senate merely to ``consider'' taking certain actions 
     later this year--the President in possibly nominating the 
     President-elect's nominees for cabinet and other offices 
     requiring confirmation, and the Senate in considering holding 
     confirmation proceedings and votes on these nominations prior 
     to the Inaugural.
       I understand that the President-Elect may not be able, for 
     whatever reason, to nominate all the people he would like by 
     his inaugural. I also understand that the Senate may not be 
     able, for whatever reason, to act as quickly as either the 
     President-Elect or resolution suggests it ought to in taking 
     final action upon his nominations. I also understand that 
     Presidents-Elect's nominees sometimes run into troubles in 
     confirmation proceedings, and there is no way to prevent at 
     least some impasses from occurring. But your resolution does 
     not require either the President or the Senate to do anything 
     in particular; it merely expresses a noble ideal shared by 
     those voting for it.
       I believe that this resolution, like your proposed 
     constitutional amendment S.J. Res. 23, should be commended 
     for its non-partisanship. I share your hope for a smooth 
     transition and continuity of the government for whoever wins 
     this November.
           Very truly yours,
                                              Michael J. Gerhardt,
                                Arthur B. Hanson Professor of Law.


                             Florida International University,

                                         Miami, FL, July 22, 2004.
     Hon. John C. Cornyn,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cornyn:  I write in support of your Sense-of-
     Senate Resolution, proposing a new informal practice for 
     nominating and confirming Cabinet officials when the White 
     House changes party hands. The Resolution urges an outgoing 
     President to nominate, and the new Senate to hold hearings 
     and confirm, some or all of the President-elect's Cabinet 
     prior to the January 20 Inauguration.
       Thomas Jefferson's ascension to the presidency has been 
     labeled the Revolution of 1800 in part because it marked one 
     of the first peaceful and orderly transfers of executive 
     power. The continued peaceful and orderly transfer of 
     executive power between political parties and ideologies has 
     become a hallmark of the American constitutional order.
       However, the Inauguration ceremony that attends this 
     orderly transfer of power, with leaders of all three branches 
     of the federal government present, marks one of two periods 
     in which presidential succession and continuity is uniquely 
     vulnerable to terrorist attack. The other vulnerable period 
     is when the President addresses a Joint Session of Congress. 
     And the safety valve used then--having one person in the line 
     of presidential succession, whether the Vice President or a 
     Cabinet member, outside of Washington--is not available in 
     the Inauguration scenario. The only people in the line of 
     presidential succession not present at the January 20 
     ceremony are Cabinet Secretaries (or perhaps only deputies 
     acting as secretary) remaining from the outgoing 
     administration. It would be inconsistent with the expressed 
     will of the People if a terrorist event on January 20, 2004 
     left the nation (only to use the next possible example of 
     this scenario) not with four years of a President Kerry and 
     Vice President Edwards, but with four years of Acting 
     President Rumsfeld.
       The proposal addresses this problem by ensuring that the 
     Cabinet members in the line of succession during the handover 
     of power on noon on January 20 will be the hand-picked policy 
     surrogates of the incoming President, those who had been 
     chosen to help the new President exercise executive power and 
     represent the national electoral constituency. Should tragedy 
     strike the Inauguration, the executive branch that emerges 
     conforms politically and ideologically with the public will 
     expressed the previous November. The acting president would 
     be of the same political party and policy commitments as the 
     person just chosen by the People through the Electoral 
     College.
       I emphasize several aspects of the proposed practice. 
     First, it urges the Senate to hold hearings and floor votes 
     ``to the extent feasible.'' This practice does not short-
     circuit the Senate's advice-and-consent role or rigorous 
     vetting of the President-elect's Cabinet. It commands that 
     the Senate take best efforts in the two-plus weeks between 
     January 3 and Inauguration Day to confirm the new Cabinet, 
     particularly some or all of the high-profile positions at the 
     top of the Departments of State, Treasury, Defense, Justice, 
     and Homeland Security. Second, it urges the outgoing 
     President to sign and deliver Commissions to the new 
     Secretaries on the morning of January 20, prior to the 
     ceremony. Until that point, the lame-duck President still 
     acts in the event of emergencies with the counsel of his own 
     Cabinet.
       Finally, the Resolution must be considered in light of the 
     Presidential Succession Act of 2004, S. 2073, 108th Cong. 
     (2004), which (properly, both as a constitutional and policy 
     matter) removes legislative officers from the line of 
     presidential succession. The practice created by the 
     Resolution, in connection with the proposed changes to the 
     succession statute, thus provides the only way to ensure a 
     popularly and politically justifiable method of presidential 
     succession in the event of an Inauguration Day tragedy.
       This informal practice benefits both political parties and 
     the American People as a whole, ensuring a smooth transition 
     whenever executive power transfers between parties. In fact, 
     the partisan cooperation inherent in the practice (an 
     outgoing President of one party nominating the policy support 
     of his successor) may ease the political rancor in the wake 
     of a heated election. This plan deserves the support of both 
     parties and should be passed.
       Thank you for your time. Best of luck in your efforts.
           Cordially,
                                             Howard M. Wassermann.
                                 ______
                                 

 SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 131--CALLING ON THE GOVERNMENT OF SAUDI 
 ARABIA TO CEASE SUPPORTING RELIGIOUS IDEOLOGIES THAT PROMOTE HATRED, 
 INTOLERANCE, VIOLENCE, AND OTHER ABUSES OF INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED 
HUMAN RIGHTS AND URGING THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO PROMOTE 
                   RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN SAUDI ARABIA

  Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Ms. Collins) submitted the following 
concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations:

                            S. Con. Res. 131

       Whereas the Department of State's Country Reports on Human 
     Rights Practices for 2003 concluded that human rights 
     conditions remain poor in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia;
       Whereas the Department of State's International Religious 
     Freedom Report for 2003 concluded that religious freedom does 
     not exist in Saudi Arabia;
       Whereas in a report on Saudi Arabia published in May 2003, 
     the United States Commission on International Religious 
     Freedom has found that religious freedom does not exist in 
     Saudi Arabia and has concluded that the Government of Saudi 
     Arabia forcefully limits the public practice or expression of 
     religion to the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam;
       Whereas the Government of Saudi Arabia severely restricts 
     non-Wahhabi places of worship and denies non-Wahhabi clerics 
     entry into the country;
       Whereas security forces of the Government of Saudi Arabia 
     continue to abuse and torture detainees and prisoners, 
     including individuals held on account of their religious 
     beliefs or practices;
       Whereas religious law is interpreted and enforced in Saudi 
     Arabia in a manner that affects every aspect of the lives of 
     women in Saudi Arabia and results in serious violations of 
     the human rights of such women;
       Whereas the Government of Saudi Arabia severely limits the 
     freedom of movement of women and discriminates against women 
     in education, employment, access to healthcare, marriage, and 
     inheritance, among other things;
       Whereas the religious police in Saudi Arabia, known as the 
     ``Mutawaa'', arbitrarily raid private homes and exercise 
     broadly defined, vague powers, including the ability to use 
     physical force and detain individuals without due process;

[[Page S8774]]

       Whereas the Mutawaa intimidate, harass, abuse, and detain 
     citizens and foreigners of both sexes;
       Whereas, although the Government of Saudi Arabia has 
     publicly affirmed that all residents of Saudi Arabia have the 
     liberty to worship in private, for several years, and as 
     recently as the fall of 2003, Shi'a clerics have been 
     arrested, imprisoned, and tortured for expressing their 
     religious views and some foreign workers have been arrested, 
     detained, tortured, and deported for worshipping in private;
       Whereas offensive and discriminatory language has been 
     found in school textbooks sponsored by Saudi Arabia, sermons 
     in mosques, and articles and commentary in the media about 
     Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims;
       Whereas, in March 2004, the Government of Saudi Arabia 
     detained and imprisoned several democratic reformers for 
     criticizing the strict religious environment and the slow 
     pace of reform in Saudi Arabia;
       Whereas the Government of Saudi Arabia, which enjoys access 
     to the United States media, refuses to allow the transmission 
     of Radio Sawa, which promotes values of democracy, tolerance, 
     and respect for human rights, in Saudi Arabia;
       Whereas the Government of Saudi Arabia funds mosques, 
     university chairs, Islamic study centers, and religious 
     schools known as madrassas, all over the world, in at least 
     30 countries;
       Whereas there have been several reports that some members 
     of extremist and militant groups that promote intolerance, 
     and in some cases violence, in the Middle East, Eastern 
     Europe, Central and South Asia, and Africa have been trained 
     as clerics in Saudi Arabia;
       Whereas there have been a growing number of reports that 
     funding originating in Saudi Arabia, including, in some 
     cases, from individuals and organizations associated with the 
     Government of Saudi Arabia and the royal family, has been 
     used to finance religious schools and other activities that 
     allegedly support religious intolerance, and, in some cases, 
     violence, associated with certain Islamic militant and 
     extremist organizations in several parts of the world;
       Whereas in response to an April 2004 request of the 
     Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives, the Comptroller General of the United States 
     is undertaking a study to determine what the Government of 
     the United States is doing to identify, monitor, and counter 
     the influence of funding and support from Saudi Arabia for 
     individuals, organizations, and institutions that advocate 
     violence, intolerance, or religious extremism outside of 
     Saudi Arabia; and
       Whereas the Government of Saudi Arabia has made public 
     statements pledging political, economic, and educational 
     reforms and the improved treatment of foreign residents, but 
     it does not appear that such pledges are being carried out is 
     Saudi Arabia: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
     concurring), That Congress--
       (1) calls on the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi 
     Arabia--
       (A) to stop providing funding for religious activities that 
     promote hatred, violence, and human rights violations;
       (B) to stop providing diplomatic status to Islamic clerics 
     and educators teaching outside of Saudi Arabia who are not 
     legally entitled to such status;
       (C) to close any Islamic affairs section of an embassy of 
     Saudi Arabia that has been responsible for propagating 
     intolerance;
       (D) to uphold the international commitments made by Saudi 
     Arabia by respecting and protecting the human rights of 
     citizens and foreigners of both sexes in Saudi Arabia;
       (E) to ratify and fully comply with international human 
     rights instruments and cooperate with United Nations human 
     rights mechanisms, and, in particular, to sign, ratify, and 
     implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political 
     Rights done at New York December 16, 1966;
       (F) to immediately implement promised judicial, political, 
     economic, and educational reforms;
       (G) to cease messages of hatred, intolerance, or incitement 
     to violence against non-Wahhabi Muslims and non-Muslim 
     religious groups in the educational curricula and textbooks, 
     mosques, and media controlled by the Government of Saudi 
     Arabia;
       (H) to permit the establishment of independent, 
     nongovernmental organizations to advance human rights and to 
     promote tolerance in Saudi Arabia, and to take action to 
     create an independent human rights commission for the same 
     purposes;
       (I) to safeguard the freedom of non-Muslims, and of those 
     Muslims who do not follow the Wahhabi interpretation of 
     Islam, to worship in private in Saudi Arabia;
       (J) to permit non-Wahhabi places of worship, such as 
     churches, to function openly in special compounds or zones 
     for foreigners or in unadorned buildings designated for this 
     purpose; and
       (K) to permit the broadcasting of Radio Sawa throughout 
     Saudi Arabia; and
       (2) urges the President--
       (A) in both public and private fora, to raise concerns at 
     the highest levels with the Government of Saudi Arabia 
     regarding the ongoing and repeated violations of 
     internationally recognized human rights, including the right 
     to freedom of religion or belief, in Saudi Arabia;
       (B) to designate Saudi Arabia a country of particular 
     concern under section 402(b)(1)(A) of the International 
     Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6442(b)(1)(A)) for 
     the systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of 
     religious freedom occurring in Saudi Arabia;
       (C) to encourage the Government of Saudi Arabia to 
     expeditiously implement the publicly stated plans for 
     judicial, political, economic, and educational reform in 
     Saudi Arabia;
       (D) to encourage the Government of Saudi Arabia to cease 
     any funding of efforts to propagate outside of Saudi Arabia 
     any religious ideology that explicitly promotes hate, 
     intolerance, and other human rights violations, including 
     violence;
       (E) to request that the Government of Saudi Arabia provide 
     an accounting of what kinds of support from Saudi Arabia go 
     to religious schools, mosques, centers of learning, and other 
     religious organizations globally, including in the United 
     States, and the names of such institutions;
       (F) to develop and expand specific initiatives and programs 
     in Saudi Arabia to advance human rights, including religious 
     freedom, the rights of women, and the rule of law, including, 
     the Greater Middle East Initiative, and the Department of 
     State's Middle East Partnership Initiative, Middle East 
     Democracy Fund, and Human Rights and Democracy Fund, 
     international broadcasting, including overcoming obstacles to 
     broadcasting Radio Sawa throughout Saudi Arabia, and other 
     public diplomacy programs; and
       (G) to provide an unclassified report to Congress on the 
     efforts of the Government of the United States to raise 
     concerns regarding human rights, including religious freedom, 
     with the Government of Saudi Arabia, and the results of such 
     efforts and the results of any initiative or program 
     described in subparagraph (F).
                                 ______
                                 

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 132--AFFIRMING THE SUPPORT OF CONGRESS FOR 
 PRESERVING THE IMAGE OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON ON THE FACE OF $10 FEDERAL 
RESERVE NOTES BECAUSE OF HIS STANDING AS ONE OF THE UNITED STATES' MOST 
                      INFLUENTIAL FOUNDING FATHERS

  Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Schumer, and Mrs. 
Clinton) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:

                            S. Con. Res. 132

       Whereas Alexander Hamilton helped found and shape the 
     United States by dedicating his life to serve distinguished 
     careers as an American revolutionary soldier and statesman;
       Whereas in 1772, Alexander Hamilton arrived in New York as 
     a student from the West Indian Island of Nevis;
       Whereas in 1781, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Hamilton of 
     the Continental Army led a regiment of New York troops in the 
     Battle of Yorktown, the decisive and final major battle in 
     the Revolutionary War;
       Whereas Alexander Hamilton served as a strong voice in the 
     Continental Congress and as an influential force as a New 
     York Delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787;
       Whereas Alexander Hamilton joined James Madison and John 
     Jay to write a majority of the Federalist Papers that urged 
     the people of New York to ratify the Constitution;
       Whereas from 1789 to 1795, Alexander Hamilton served in 
     President George Washington's Administration as the first 
     Secretary of the Treasury and established the first Bank of 
     the United States to manage trade and finance;
       Whereas Alexander Hamilton's innovative mind created public 
     credit, a circulating medium, and the financial framework of 
     the United States;
       Whereas Alexander Hamilton proposed the creation of the 
     Revenue Marines, today known as the Coast Guard, a branch of 
     the military that Congress created to secure the revenue of 
     the United States against contraband;
       Whereas Alexander Hamilton exercised his vision for the 
     United States to establish a strong domestic manufacturing 
     base; and
       Whereas Alexander Hamilton is known as the ``Father of 
     Paterson'' for his championing of the Society for 
     Establishing Useful Manufactures (SUM), a group that founded 
     Paterson, New Jersey in 1791, and established it as one of 
     the first industrial centers of the United States: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
     concurring), That Congress affirms its support for preserving 
     the image of Alexander Hamilton on the face of $10 Federal 
     reserve notes because of his standing as one of the United 
     States most influential founding fathers.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a Senate 
concurrent resolution which affirms the support of Congress for 
preserving the image of Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill. Alexander 
Hamilton is a Founding Father of our Nation. He was a Lieutenant 
Colonel in the Revolutionary War, a voice in the Continental

[[Page S8775]]

Congress, and a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. He authored 
more than 50 of the 85 ``Federalist Papers.'' He organized the Revenue 
Marines, known today as the Coast Guard, and played a crucial role in 
the creation of the U.S. Navy. And Alexander Hamilton is the creator of 
one of America's first industrial and manufacturing centers, in 
Paterson, NJ.
  Alexander Hamilton was also America's first Secretary of the Treasury 
and the founder of the first United States Bank. He is responsible for 
the financial system that our country maintains today. He created the 
first bank, the first tax system, the first budget, and a strong 
currency. He had a vision for establishing the economic viability of 
our fledgling country based on banking, investment, manufacturing, 
industry, and commerce. We are an economic superpower and a model for 
the rest of the world in large part because of Alexander Hamilton.
  When we look to the Founding Fathers who played significant roles in 
the formation of America, we see that among them, George Washington has 
a monument in our Nation's Capital, and his image is on the $1 bill and 
the quarter deservedly so. Thomas Jefferson also has an impressive 
memorial in Washington, the main building of the Library of Congress is 
named after him, and his image is on the $2 bill and the nickel--again, 
deservedly so. Alexander Hamilton's image is on the $10 bill--and it 
should remain on the $10 bill. There is perhaps no other American more 
responsible for the fact that we have a $10 bill.
  Of course, Washington and Jefferson were our first and third 
Presidents. Many of our other Presidents have been or will be 
appropriately memorialized in some fashion. For instance, our 40th 
President, Ronald Reagan, has had Washington National Airport and the 
second largest Federal building in the country, only the Pentagon is 
bigger, named after him. The headquarters of the Central Intelligence 
Agency at Langley, VA, has been named after our 41st President, George 
H. W. Bush. One of the four office buildings for the U.S. House of 
Representatives has been named after our 38th President, Gerald Ford. 
And the Old Executive Office Building--right next to the White House--
has been named after our 34th President, Dwight Eisenhower.
  We stand in a Senate Chamber steeped in history; in a country quite 
conscious and proud of its birth. We revere those individuals such as 
Washington, Jefferson, and Hamilton who were present at the creation of 
our great Nation and helped to establish the democracy we enjoy as a 
birthright. It is our duty to uphold their legacy and preserve their 
image. Alexander Hamilton played an instrumental role in our triumph in 
the Revolutionary War, the birth of our democracy, and the 
establishment of our financial system. His image must, at the very 
least, remain on the $10 bill. There have been many Presidents, and 
there will be many more. But there will be no more Founding Fathers.
                                 ______
                                 

 SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 133--DECLARING GENOCIDE IN DARFUR, SUDAN

  Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Kohl, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. 
Johnson, Mr. Levin, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Lautenberg, Ms. 
Mikulski, Mrs. Dole, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Leahy, 
Mr. Byrd, Mr. Fitzgerald, and Mr. Smith) submitted the following 
concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

                            S. Con. Res. 133

       Whereas Article 1 of the Convention on the Prevention and 
     Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (signed at Paris on 
     December 9, 1948) states that ``the Contracting Parties 
     confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or 
     in time of war, is a crime under international law which they 
     undertake to prevent and to punish'';
       Whereas Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and 
     Punishment of the Crime of Genocide declares that ``in the 
     present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts 
     committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a 
     national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) 
     killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or 
     mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately 
     inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to 
     bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) 
     imposing measures intended to prevent births within the 
     group; and (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to 
     another group'';
       Whereas Article 3 of the Convention on the Prevention and 
     Punishment of the Crime of Genocide affirms that ``[the] 
     following acts shall be punishable: (a) genocide; (b) 
     conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) direct and public 
     incitement to commit genocide; (d) attempt to committed 
     genocide; and (e) complicit in genocide'';
       Whereas in Darfur, Sudan, an estimated 30,000 innocent 
     civilians have been brutally murdered, more than 130,000 
     people have been forced from their homes and have fled to 
     neighboring Chad, and more than 1,000,000 people have been 
     internally displaced; and
       Whereas in March 2004 the United Nations Resident 
     Humanitarian Coordinator stated: ``[T]he war in Darfur 
     started off in a small way last year but it has progressively 
     gotten worse. A predominant feature of this is that the brunt 
     is being borne by civilians. This includes vulnerable women 
     and children . . . The violence in Darfur appears to be 
     particularly directed at a specific group based on their 
     ethnic identity and appears to be systemized.'': Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
     concurring), That Congress--
       (1) declares that the atrocities unfolding in Darfur, 
     Sudan, are genocide;
       (2) reminds the Contracting Parties to the Convention on 
     the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide 
     (signed at Paris on December 9, 1948), particularly the 
     Government of Sudan, of their legal obligations under the 
     Convention;
       (3) declares that the Government of Sudan, as a Contracting 
     Party, has violated the Convention on the Prevention and 
     Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;
       (4) deplores the failure of the United Nations Human Rights 
     Commission to take appropriate action with respect to the 
     crisis in Darfur, Sudan, particularly the failure by the 
     Commission to support United States-sponsored efforts to 
     strongly condemn gross human rights violations committed in 
     Darfur, and calls upon the United Nations and the United 
     Nations Secretary General to assert leadership by calling the 
     atrocities being committed in Darfur by their rightful name: 
     ``genocide'';
       (5) calls on the member states of the United Nations, 
     particularly member states from the African Union, the Arab 
     League, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, to 
     undertake measures to prevent the genocide in Darfur, Sudan, 
     from escalating further, including the imposition of targeted 
     means against those responsible for the atrocities;
       (6) commends the Administration's leadership in seeking a 
     peaceful resolution to the conflict in Darfur, Sudan, and in 
     addressing the ensuing humanitarian crisis, including the 
     visit of Secretary of State Colin Powell to Darfur in June 
     2004 to engage directly in efforts to end the genocide, and 
     the provision of nearly $140,000,000 to date in bilateral 
     humanitarian assistance through the United States Agency for 
     International Development;
       (7) commends the President for appointing former Senator 
     John Danforth as Envoy for Peace in Sudan on September 6, 
     2001, and further commends the appointment of Senator 
     Danforth as United States Ambassador to the United Nations;
       (8) calls on the Administration to continue to lead an 
     international effort to stop genocide in Darfur, Sudan;
       (9) calls on the Administration to impose targeted means, 
     including visa bans and the freezing of assets, against 
     officials and other individuals of the Government of Sudan, 
     as well as Janjaweed militia commanders, who are responsible 
     for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur, Sudan; 
     and
       (10) calls on the United States Agency for International 
     Development to establish a Darfur Resettlement, 
     Rehabilitation, and Reconstruction Fund so that those 
     individuals driven off their land may return and begin to 
     rebuild their communities.
                                 ______
                                 

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 134--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE CONGRESS 
        THAT THE PARTHENON MARBLES SHOULD BE RETURNED TO GREECE

  Mr. FITZGERALD (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Sarbanes) 
submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to 
the Committee on Foreign Relations:

                            S. Con Res. 134

       Whereas the Parthenon was built on the hill of the 
     Acropolis in Athens, Greece in the mid-fifth century B.C. 
     under the direction of the Athenian statesman Pericles and 
     the design of the sculptor Phidias.
       Whereas the Parthenon is the ultimate expression of the 
     artistic genius of Greece, the preeminent symbol of the Greek 
     cultural heritage--its art, architecture, and democracy--and 
     of the contributions that modern Greeks and their forefathers 
     have made to civilization;
       Whereas the Parthenon has served as a place of worship for 
     ancient Greeks, Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholics, and 
     Muslims;
       Whereas the Parthenon has been adopted by imitation by the 
     United States in many preeminent public buildings, including 
     the Lincoln Memorial;

[[Page S8776]]

       Whereas over 100 pieces of the Parthenon's sculptures--now 
     known as the Parthenon Marbles--were removed from the 
     Parthenon under questionable circumstances between 1801 and 
     1816 by Thomas Bruce, seventh Earl of Elgin, while Greece was 
     still under Ottoman rule;
       Whereas the removal of the Parthenon Marbles, including 
     their perilous voyage to Great Britain and their careless 
     storage there for many years greatly endangered the Marbles;
       Whereas the Parthenon Marbles were removed to grace the 
     private home of Lord Elgin, who transferred the Marbles to 
     the British Museum only after severe personal economic 
     misfortunes;
       Whereas the sculptures of the Parthenon were designed as an 
     integral part of the structure of the Parthenon temple; the 
     carvings of the friezes, pediments, and metopes are not 
     merely statuary, movable decorative art, but are integral 
     parts of the Parthenon, which can best be appreciated if all 
     the Parthenon Marbles are reunified.
       Whereas the Parthenon is a universal symbol of culture, 
     democracy, and freedom, making the Parthenon Marbles of 
     concern not only to Greece but to all the world;
       Whereas, since obtaining independence in 1830, Greece has 
     sought the return of the Parthenon Marbles;
       Whereas the return of the Parthenon Marbles would be a 
     profound demonstration by the United Kingdom of its 
     appreciation and respect for the Parthenon and classical art;
       Whereas returning the Parthenon Marbles to Greece would be 
     a gesture of good will on the part of the British Parliament, 
     and would set no legal precedent, nor in any other way affect 
     the ownership or disposition of other objects in museums in 
     the United States or around the world;
       Whereas the United Kingdom should return the Parthenon 
     Marbles in recognition that the Parthenon is part of the 
     cultural heritage of the entire world and, as such, should be 
     made whole;
       Whereas Greece would provide care for the Parthenon Marbles 
     equal or superior to the care provided by the British Museum, 
     especially considering the irreparable harm caused by 
     attempts by the museum to remove the original color and 
     patina of the Marbles with abrasive cleaners;
       Whereas Greece is constructing a new, permanent museum in 
     full view of the Acropolis to house all the Marbles, 
     protected from the elements in a safe, climate-controlled 
     environment;
       Whereas Greece has pledged to work with the British 
     government to negotiate mutually agreeable conditions for the 
     return of the Parthenon Marbles;
       Where the people of Greece have a greater, ancient bond to 
     the Parthenon Marbles, which were in Greece for over 2,200 
     years of the over 2,430-year history of the Parthenon;
       Whereas the British people support the return of the 
     Parthenon Marbles, as reflected in several recent polls;
       Whereas a resolution signed by a majority of members of the 
     European Parliament urged the British government to return 
     the Parthenon Marbles to their natural setting in Greece;
       Whereas the British House of Commons Select Committee on 
     Culture, Media and Sport is to be commended for examining the 
     issue of the disposition of the Parthenon Marbles in hearings 
     held in 2000; and
       Whereas Athens, Greece--birthplace of the Olympics--was 
     selected as the host city of the Olympics Games in 2004, and 
     the Parthenon Marbles should returned to their home in Athens 
     in 2004; Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
     concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the 
     Government of the United Kingdom should enter into 
     negotiations with the Government of Greece as soon as 
     possible to facilitate the return of the Parthenon Marbles to 
     Greece.
                                 ______
                                 

    SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 135--AUTHORIZING THE PRINTING OF A 
 COMMEMORATIVE DOCUMENT IN MEMORY OF THE LATE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
                      STATES, RONALD WILSON REAGAN

  Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following 
concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

                            S. Con. Res. 135

       Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
     concurring),

     SECTION 1. COMMEMORATIVE DOCUMENT AUTHORIZED.

        A commemorative document in memory of the late President 
     of the United States, Ronald Wilson Reagan, consisting of the 
     eulogies and encomiums for Ronald Wilson Reagan, as expressed 
     in the Senate and the House of Representatives, together with 
     the texts of the state funeral ceremony at the United States 
     Capitol Rotunda, the national funeral service held at the 
     Washington National Cathedral, Washington, District of 
     Columbia, and the interment ceremony at the Ronald Reagan 
     Presidential Library, Simi Valley, California, shall be 
     printed as a Senate document, with illustrations and suitable 
     binding.

     SEC. 2. PRINTING OF DOCUMENT.

       In addition to the usual number of copies printed, there 
     shall be printed the lesser of--
       (1) 32,500 copies of the commemorative document, of which 
     22,150 copies shall be for the use of the House of 
     Representatives and 10,350 copies shall be for the use of the 
     Senate; or
       (2) such number of copies of the commemorative document 
     that does not exceed a production and printing cost of 
     $1,000,000, with distribution of the copies to be allocated 
     in the same proportion as described in paragraph (1).

                          ____________________