A bill to create and extend certain temporary district court judgeships.

Mr. President, how much time remains to the Senator from Vermont?

How much time remains on the other side?

That is close enough; almost 100.

Mr. President, today the Senate turns to the consideration of another nomination for a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench--Brian Stacy Miller for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Judge Miller currently serves as a State appellate judge on the Arkansas Court of Appeals. He previously served as city judge in Holly Grove, AR, was a deputy prosecuting attorney for Phillips County, AR, and worked for several years in private practice.

With this nomination, we continue our work toward building a more representative Federal judiciary. I am pleased that, when confirmed, Judge Miller will be the 88th African-American currently serving on our Federal bench and the 74th African-American serving as a district court judge.

I thank Senators Pryor and Lincoln for their consideration of this nominee, and I thank Senator Feinstein for chairing the hearing on this nomination. I congratulate the nominee and his family on his confirmation today.

Today the Senate also considers another nomination for a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench--Stanley Thomas Anderson for the Western District of Tennessee. Judge Anderson is currently a magistrate judge for the Western District of Tennessee. He previously worked in private practice as the founder and owner of Anderson Law Firm in Jackson, TN.

He served as a claims commissioner for the State of Tennessee Department of Treasury and as assistant commissioner for the Tennessee Department of Transportation. I acknowledge the support of Senators Corker and Alexander for this nomination. I congratulate the nominee and his family on his confirmation today.

Another nomination for a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench is that of James Randal Hall for the Southern District of Georgia. Mr. Hall is currently a partner at the Augusta, GA, law firm of Warlick, Tritt, Stebbins & Hall.

He previously worked as corporate vice president and legal counsel for Bankers First Corporation and worked in private practice for several other Georgia law firms. Mr. Hall held the distinction of serving the people of the 22nd District of Georgia as a State senator.

I acknowledge the support of Senators Chambliss and Isakson and thank Senator Feinstein for chairing the hearing on this nomination. I congratulate the nominee and his family on his confirmation today.

Then we turn to the consideration of yet another nomination for a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench--the nomination of John A. Mendez for the Eastern District of California. Judge Mendez currently serves as a judge on the Sacramento County Superior Court. He previously served as the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California and worked in private practice.

With this nomination, we continue our work toward building a more representative Federal judiciary. I am pleased that, when confirmed, Judge Mendez will be the 58th Hispanic judge currently serving on our Federal bench and would become the only currently active Hispanic judge in the Eastern District of California.

I thank Senators Feinstein and Boxer for their support of this nomination. I congratulate the nominee and his family on his confirmation today.

Mr. President, the Senate makes significant progress today by confirming yet another appointment to one of our important Federal circuit courts as well as four lifetime appointments of Federal district court nominations. The circuit court nomination we are considering is that of Judge Catharina Haynes of Texas. Her confirmation will fill the very last vacancy on the important court of appeals for the Fifth Circuit, but it is also a vacancy that has been listed as a judicial emergency.

I acknowledge the support of Senator Cornyn and his work with me to schedule her nomination. Senator Cornyn had the time to sit down and explain why she was important and brought her to my attention and helped me report it from the Judiciary Committee last week. I imagine Judge Haynes' first phone call if confirmed this afternoon, as I expect, will be to Senator Cornyn to say thank you.

Despite the progress we continue to make and will make today, some of the rhetoric from the other side of the aisle suggests that judicial confirmations is the most pressing and unsatisfied need facing our country. Now with an economic recession facing Americans, many would say already here, the massive job losses this year, and the home mortgage foreclosures and credit, any partisan effort to create an issue over judicial confirmations is greatly misplaced, and the American people can see through that facade.

The recent job loss reports from the Department of Labor are dramatic. In the first 3 months of this year the U.S. economy lost 232,000 jobs. March marked the greatest loss of jobs during 1 month in at least 5 years. Instead of adding the 100,000 new jobs we would need each month to prevent unemployment from rising further, we have experienced 3 months in a row of significant job losses. This year alone we are already half a million jobs behind where we need to be just to stay even and not lose economic ground.

Yet last week when I convened the Judiciary Committee to make progress on bills to help homeowners in bankruptcy and to improve the False Claims Act to better target fraud, the priority of the Republicans was none of these important legislative issues. Instead, they engaged in a back and forth on judicial nominations. This administration is apparently more worried about the jobs of a small handful of controversial nominees--many, incidentally, who are not supported by their home State Senators--than they are about the jobs and lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans. With that massive loss of jobs, the Nation's unemployment rate has risen dramatically to over 5.1 percent.

Let's take a look at where we are now. This is what has happened in this Presidency. Unemployment has gone up more than 21 percent during this Presidency. The price of gas has gone up more than 132 percent during the Bush Presidency. The number of uninsured has gone up 11 percent during the Bush Presidency. The budget deficit has increased $590 billion, going from a quarter of a trillion dollar surplus to a $354 billion deficit. The trade deficit has gone up 87 percent. All these things have gone up during the Bush Presidency. Meanwhile, judicial vacancies have gone down 46 percent, from 9.9 percent to 5.3 percent. And a lot of that, a significant part of that, happened during a time when Democrats were in charge.

Just think about that. Now it costs more than a billion dollars a day to pay down the interest on the national debt and the massive cost of the disastrous war in Iraq. Think about that, if you hear in your State you have a bridge that is somewhat dangerous but they can't afford to fix it. Think about that in your State, when you are told that Federal dollars to help law enforcement protect Americans from crime is no longer there because we have to send the money to the Iraqi police force, a police force that cannot account for thousands of the weapons that we gave them until some of them end up shooting at Americans. But somehow that money has to go to fix up Iraq, and we do not have it to fix up America. It has to go to Iraq while we are paying almost $4 a gallon for gasoline, and Iraq has a huge budget surplus from $100-a- barrel oil. They ask us to pay for the reconstruction, and to pay for it, we take the money from reconstructing America. That is a billion dollars a day, $365 billion this year that could be better spent not on Iraq but on priorities such as health care for all Americans, better schools, fighting crime, treating diseases at home and abroad.

In contrast, one of the few numbers going down as the President winds down his tenure is that of judicial vacancies. Judicial vacancies are less than half of what they were during the last Democratic administration, when the Republican majority in the Senate chose to stall consideration of scores of nominees and maintained these vacancies, when they pocket filibustered over 60 of President Clinton's nominees. They succeeded in doubling the number of circuit court vacancies during those years and those vacancies rose to a high of 32 with the resignations that accompanied the change of administration.

By contrast, Democrats have helped reduce circuit court vacancies across the country to as low as 13 in 2007. That is going to be the number of remaining circuit court vacancies today, after the confirmation of Judge Haynes. So that is half of what they were at the end of the last Democratic administration, when a Republican-led Senate was in charge.

During the last Democratic administration, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee argued that the 103 vacancies that then existed did not constitute a vacancy crisis. I guess he meant that when you had a Democratic President, it was not a crisis. He also argued on numerous occasions that 67 vacancies meant full employment on the Federal courts, if you had a Democratic President. After today's confirmation, the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts will list 47 vacancies. That is 20 below what Republicans used to deem full employment, below half. We have cut in half the vacancy level they felt was appropriate for a Democratic administration. In the 17 months I chaired the Judiciary Committee during President Bush's first term, we acted faster and more favorably on more of this President's judicial nominees than any 17 months and either of the Republican chairmen who succeeded me.

During those 17 months the Senate confirmed 100 judicial nominations. When I reassumed the chairmanship last year, the committee and the Senate continued to make progress with the confirmation of 40 more lifetime appointments of judges to our Federal courts. That is more than were confirmed during any of the 3 preceding years under Republican leadership and certainly more than were confirmed in 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2000. What is the difference? A Democratic-led Senate did a lot better for a Republican President than a Republican-led Senate did for a Democratic President.

During this Presidency, while I have served as Judiciary chairman, the Senate will have proceeded after today to confirm 145 lifetime appointments in only 3 years, compared to 158 during the more than 4 years of Republican control. When the Senate confirms Judge Haynes today--here we are in April--we will have surpassed the total number of circuit judges confirmed by Republicans during the entire 1996 session. It was easy to do because a Republican majority refused to confirm even one of President Clinton's circuit nominees, not one. Indeed, the first confirmation of any judge that session didn't even take place until July 10, and that was a district court. So we are also 3 months ahead of the schedule followed by the Republican leadership during that presidential election year.

Some will undoubtedly repeat the partisan Republican talking point that the Senate must confirm 15 circuit judges for Congress to match a mythical statistical average of selected years. God love those mythical statistical averages. It is sort of like the man who puts one foot in boiling water and one foot in a block of ice and says: On average, I am pretty darn comfortable.

Well, it is true that during the last 2 years of this President's father's term, with a Democratic-led Senate, we confirmed an extraordinary number of circuit nominees: 20. It is true that during the last 2 years of the Reagan administration, a Democratic-led Senate confirmed 17 circuit court nominees. So what they are saying is, if we are going to use an average, we are going to use an average only when the Democrats are in charge.

Maybe it would be different if after we set those high records-- Democrats with a Republican President--that even a little bit of that had been reciprocated. Well, it was not. Instead, the Republican-led Senate, with a Democratic President, made sure that judicial vacancies skyrocketed to historic levels. It actually got to the point that Chief Justice Rehnquist, a conservative Republican, weighed in publicly to criticize the Republican-led Senate.

Republicans do not talk about what they did. I do not believe they can bear an accurate comparison of what we have accomplished and what they did not.

So I wonder when the Republican leader and others who come to the floor with accusations about slow-walking nominations will explain their roles during the Clinton years--especially the over 60 they pocket filibustered, something joined by every Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Why was it that during the 1996 session--the end of President Clinton's first term--the Republican-led Senate refused to confirm a single circuit nomination?

Why was it that Bonnie Campbell, the former attorney general of Iowa, who was supported by both Senator Harkin, a Democrat, and Senator Grassley, a Republican, was never even allowed to be considered by the Judiciary Committee, to say nothing about the full Senate, after her hearing?

Why was it that Kent Markus, of Ohio, a law professor, a former high- ranking Department of Justice official, who was supported by both his home State senators--both Republicans, incidentally--was never considered by the Judiciary Committee or this Senate?

Why was it that so many circuit vacancies were left without any nominees considered during the last years of the last Democratic administration when Republicans controlled the Senate?

I remember one. When I asked them about that one, they said: Well, we can't have her. We are not sure of her qualifications. That nominee is now the dean of the Harvard Law School--one of the most prestigious legal positions in America.

So Republican Senators have many questions to answer before they level accusations of any kind. To any objective observer, the answer is clear. The Republican Senate chose to stall consideration of circuit nominees and maintain vacancies during the Clinton administration in hopes they would have a Republican Presidency. Vacancies rose to over 100. Circuit vacancies doubled. But as soon as a Republican President was elected, they sought to turn the tables and take full advantage of the vacancies they prevented from being filled. Well, they have been extraordinarily successful. Currently, more than 60 percent of active judges on the Federal circuit courts were appointed by Republican Presidents, and more than 35 percent have been appointed by this President.

Another way to look at their success and compare the better treatment shown to this President is to observe that the Senate has already confirmed more than three-quarters of this President's circuit court nominees, compared to only half of President Clinton's circuit nominees confirmed by a Republican-controlled Senate.

Now, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have turned the other cheek. I have worked hard to improve the treatment of nominees. To make progress, I even chaired the Judiciary Committee's hearing on the circuit nomination before us today during a congressional recess. I said that we would treat this President's nominees more fairly than the Republicans treated President Clinton's, and we have. We have not pocket filibustered more than 60 of this President's judicial nominees, as was done to President Clinton's nominees. We have not opposed them in secret or anonymously. In fact, during my chairmanship, the views of home State senators, as reflected in the ``blue slips'' submitted to the committee, were made public for the first time. No more secret holds. We did not allow that. We have considered nominations openly and on the Record. We have proceeded with consideration of nominees whom I opposed, something that never happened under previous Republican leadership. If the Republican chairman opposed them, they never even got a consideration.

I am glad we have Judge Haynes here because if she is confirmed, then the Fifth Circuit will have no vacancies. I was almost worried whether she would get here.

Even though she was already on the Judiciary Committee's agenda, she appeared at a political, partisan function at the White House, where they were demanding that she be put on the agenda. Of course, she was already there. It had been noticed for a couple days. Then, when we were set to vote on her last week, Republicans almost filibustered her nomination. They talked so much, we virtually ran out of time, and I had to keep this committee in an extra 10 minutes; otherwise, she would not have been confirmed. It was then that I realized what was happening--just like in February, when they refused to show up and make a quorum throughout the whole month of February. If they had shown up, we would have passed out a number of judges. But they were planning to give speeches saying we are not passing out judges, so they would not show up to make sure that happened.

Mr. President, I will yield without losing my right to the floor.

That is right.

If the Senator will yield, they asked me several times, over a period of several weeks, to delay the vote.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Maryland, who has been a tremendous help and a key member of our committee.

As I said before, if Judge Haynes is confirmed today, the Fifth Circuit will have no vacancies. We have proceeded despite the fact that 12 of the 16 active judges on this court have been appointed by Republican Presidents. I did this notwithstanding the fact that Republicans blocked President Clinton's nominees. Judge Jorge Rangel, of Texas, Enrique Moreno, of Texas, and Alston Johnson, of Louisiana were all blocked. They were told they could not even have hearings because it was a Democratic President. We have not done that. Every one of these circuit court nominees has had a hearing and a vote. In fact, I have held hearings on all six of the Fifth Circuit nominees of this President during my chairmanship. With today's vote, the Senate will have voted on all of them.

Just understand this: Republicans would not hold hearings on President Clinton's nominees to that circuit. I have held hearings on them, and we have voted on them all. And we will hear these crocodile tears on the other side that: Oh, woe is me, we are not getting any circuit judges. Well, most of the time I have ignored it because it has been such balderdash that it is hard to think that anybody would believe it. But just in case somebody has been fooled by it, I thought we would put the numbers in the Record.

In fact, vacancies on the Fifth Circuit are at an alltime low--zero after today. Contrast this with the situation during the Clinton years, when the Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit declared a circuit emergency because Republicans were pocket filibustering all of President Clinton's nominees. That circuit-wide emergency was due to multiple, simultaneous vacancies caused by the fact that the Republican-led Senate would not act on the nominees of a Democratic President.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, without losing my right to the floor, I be allowed to yield to the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. President, would the Senator yield?

No. 1, I can't tell my dear friend from Nevada how much what he has said has meant. He has told me similar things in private as well as in public. He and I have been close friends for well over 20 years, and he knows of my huge respect and affection for him.

I chuckled as he put his finger on the issue, as he always does--the man from Searchlight shines the light on what happens--and talked about this kabuki show we saw this morning on the floor, criticizing me especially for moving judges. It kind of reminds me of what happened in February where we had markups to confirm judges and the Republicans would not show up. We wondered, why wouldn't they show up for their own judges? Why wouldn't they show up when they were given a chance to get out these judges? And then I find out. They were all giving speeches saying it is terrible we are not getting out judges. Well, if they had shown up, of course, the speeches could not be given. It is kind of damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I said when I became chairman the first time and again the second time I would not do to them, or to President Bush, what they did to President Clinton and to us, and I have not. I do not intend to. I told the President that. But I would like to see a little bit of cooperation from the White House in working with home State Senators and in working with us not to get

idealogues that fit well in a fundraising letter, but instead to nominate people who are good for the Federal court.

So I can't tell the distinguished leader enough how much I appreciate his constant support throughout this whole thing.

Mr. President, as I said to the leader, I would still rather see us work with the President on the selection of nominees the Senate can proceed to confirm than waste precious time fighting about controversial nominees to score political points. I will give an example. We have a State with a highly respected Republican Senator and a highly respected Democratic Senator, and they worked together to make recommendations that were completely out of any kind of partisan politics. They sent a list of several people who had gone through the screening committee, talked to everybody on the bar--Democrats, Republicans, people with no political affiliations--and said: Look, here is a list of the best people we could possibly find in our State. White House, you go ahead and pick whomever you want out of this group. We are happy with them.

They came and talked to me, and I said fine. I have huge respect for both the Republican Senator and the Democratic Senator, and I am sure we can move them through. Do my colleagues know what happened. The White House rejected that and sent up a totally controversial person. Again, the fundraising letters went out touting how we have to have this person. Both of the Senators said they would not return a positive blue slip; they wouldn't support this. It was not somebody they wanted to have on their record as supporting.

The White House finally withdrew that name. It went back to those Senators, and I am told by the Senators they have a nomination now that both will support for the circuit court of appeals, and that person will go charging through.

I recall another nomination this White House had made, strongly opposed by the two Senators, one of the more senior Members of the Senate, from their State. Those Senators said they did not want this nomination to go through and it did not. I still hear how terrible it was we did not confirm that nomination, even after the nominee pled guilty to criminal fraud.

I can think of other examples of people whom my Republican colleagues came and said: We really don't want to go with this person because of their situation back home--without going into a further description.

Now, Judge Catharina Haynes--and I see my friend, the distinguished Senator from Texas on the Senate floor, Senator Cornyn--Judge Catharina Haynes is a former Texas State trial judge in the 191st District Court for the State of Texas. She currently works as a partner at the law firm of Baker Botts in Dallas--an excellent firm. The Fifth Circuit has played an extraordinarily historic role in the protection of civil rights in this country. As we moved from that terrible time in our history of segregation into civil rights for all, some of those judges were among the most courageous this Nation has known.

I wish I knew more about Judge Haynes's attitude about civil rights than her record and testimony reveal. But I listened to what the distinguished Senator from Texas said, and I vote in favor of confirmation with the hope that she will treasure and follow the example of earlier judges in that court who made such a passionate commitment to the rights of all Americans.

So I congratulate her and her family on what I expect will be her confirmation today.

We have five nominations. I had been told the leadership has been talking about having rollcalls. We still have a fair amount of time on both sides; am I correct?

Mr. President, because I have been asked by both Republican and Democratic Senators, with the American Airlines snafu and other things as we are trying to get flights out of here, I might ask the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania how soon he would be willing to start votes if I were to yield back all time.

Mr. President, I am going to talk to the Senators who have proposed these nominations. I have been a little bit more lengthy than normal, but that is after several hours that have been spent on the floor of the Senate being critical of me--I did not respond to that until now--just as a great deal of time was spent in the Senate Judiciary Committee being critical of me which I did not respond to; otherwise, we would not have Judge Haynes on the floor today because the Republicans would have filibustered her nomination.

So I will not quite yet withhold the balance of time. I am prepared, if people want, to begin these votes within the next 5 minutes and to work with--I understand a couple of the proponents of a couple of these judges are not going to require rollcall votes.

I want to be able to confirm that. If that is the case, I am prepared to begin in the next 5 minutes or so. I withhold the remainder of my time.

To answer that question, the Senator from Pennsylvania is one of the most articulate, best trial attorneys in this place. He could do in a minute what others would take an hour to do. I did try to take far less time than was used to attack me this morning.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request so we can move on?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate call up the nomination of Catharina Haynes of Texas to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, that the nomination be confirmed and sent to the President.

The Senator is talking about ways to move forward. I am asking by consent that we confirm by voice vote Calendar No. 515, Catharina Haynes to be a Fifth Circuit Judge.

Mr. President, is the Senator going to object?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that both sides yield back their time and we begin with a vote on Brian Stacy Miller of Arkansas, which will be a rollcall vote, and if rollcall votes are required on the subsequent nominations, that they be 10-minute rollcalls.

No. I should advise, I will ask, if time is all yielded back, for the yeas and nays on Brian Stacy Miller, but if the yeas and nays are requested on the subsequent nominees, that they be 10-minute rollcalls, although subsequent to the Brian Stacy Miller, the first one.

Why don't we begin with this nomination, and the distinguished ranking member, who is one of the closest friends I have in this body, and I may discuss that during that rollcall vote.

We just confirmed Senator Cornyn's nomination. Does he want us to undo that?

Let me do this. I ask unanimous consent that at 5 minutes of 6, all time be yielded back and the Senate go to a vote on the nomination of Brian Stacy Miller of Arkansas.

I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be ordered on Brian Stacy Miller.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 3 minutes be yielded to the Senator from Texas.

I thank the Senator from Texas.

I believe we are ready to vote.

Vote on the Nomination of Brian Stacy Miller to be United States

District Judge

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

Mr. President, I send a series of 18 amendments to the desk which have been cleared by myself and the now acting ranking member, Senator Warner, and ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider those amendments en bloc, the amendments be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to any specific amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend, Senator Warner, for that suggestion. This is a good moment to do that before we have a vote later on the bill. Our staffs, as always, put in an amazing amount of time--in the evenings, mornings, over weekends--in order for us to get through hundreds of amendments.

Actually, the Senator is right. I think there were 180 cleared amendments and about 35 amendments that

have been disposed of separately one way or another.

So I do not know if we set a record because my good friend from Virginia probably is the record-holder--and probably more than once. But, I say to the Senator, we are going to try to get to where you have been. We are going to try harder.

With you every time. But when you were chairman and you--

One time each, I think, for 18 days.

But, in any event, I thank our staffs.

I thank my friend for raising this issue.

Mr. President, if I could add one word on that subject, the Senator from Massachusetts is not only about as diligent a Senator as one can imagine, but he has had great success on this particular bill. I do not know how he manages to keep all the balls in the air that he does, including the CHIP program, immigration, and so many other issues. But he has had an extraordinary success on this particular bill, and it is a real tribute to him--this bill--for many reasons.

Mr. President, I wish to rise in support of the pending amendment by Senator Kennedy on public-private competition. Sometimes this amendment is described as the Kennedy-Mikulski or the Mikulski- Kennedy amendment. Both Senators deserve a great deal of credit for their support.

The Department of Defense has allowed its workforce of civilian employees to atrophy to the point of a human capital crisis. Since fiscal year 2000, the number of contractor employees under DOD service contracts has roughly doubled, while the number of DOD civilian employees has remained virtually unchanged. As a result, the Department of Defense has found in area after area--acquisition management, financial management, even security and intelligence--it must now rely upon contractors to perform functions that were formerly performed by Federal employees.

These adverse trends have been exacerbated by an administration that has consistently pushed to have more Federal work performed in the private sector. In 2001, the Office of Management and Budget established a goal of subjecting half of the work performed by Federal employees to private sector competition within 4 years. While the administration subsequently backed off of this Government-wide goal, OMB continues to establish agency-specific goals, and to grade agencies on their performance in converting work to private sector performance.

The Kennedy-Mikulski amendment would end this artificial effort to drive contracts to the private sector by codifying a commonsense set of rules that govern competition between Federal employees and private contractors.

Some of these rules have already been enacted through appropriations acts in previous Congresses. The Kennedy-Mikulski amendment would make these rules permanent law. Others have

already been enacted for the DOD. The Kennedy-Mikulski amendment would make these provisions Government-wide.

I wish to focus on one provision of the amendment which addresses a fundamental element of fairness in competition between the private and public sectors. OMB circular A-76, which governs public-private competitions, establishes rules for what happens after one side or the other wins a competition. If the private sector wins a competition, the work stays in the private sector forever. If the public sector wins, however, the work must be subject to a new competition within 5 years. Attachment B to OMB circular A-76 specifically states that if the public sector competitor wins a competition, ``an agency shall complete another . . . competition of the activity by the end of the last performance period'' in the performance agreement.

This rule is fundamentally unfair. It also undermines the morale of Federal civilian employees by contributing to the view of civil servants as second-class citizens. At a time when the Department of Defense should be recruiting thousands of new civilian employees to address a human capital crisis, the rule is clearly contrary to the Department's own interests.

The Kennedy-Mikulski amendment would address this problem by stating that OMB may not require the Department of Defense to conduct a new public-private competition within any specified period of time after the public sector wins a competition. That is the right answer. DOD's human capital policies should be driven by the Department's human capital needs--not by arbitrary policies established by the Office of Management and Budget. So I hope our colleagues will support the Kennedy-Mikulski amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, last week, the Senate adopted a historic amendment offered by Senators Webb, McCaskill, and others, to establish an independent commission to review the many problems with fraud, waste, and abuse that have arisen in Iraq relative to contracting and to give us recommendations on how we can avoid similar problems in the future. I wish to commend the Senators that were involved in this effort for the leadership they showed in drafting this amendment and getting it adopted by the Senate.

The Department of Defense faces huge problems in its acquisition system today. Over the last few years, we have seen an alarming lack of acquisition planning across the Department; the excessive use of contracts that make open-ended commitments of DOD funds; and a pervasive failure to perform contract oversight and management functions necessary to protect taxpayers' interest. These problems have been particularly acute in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they are in no way limited to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The contracting commission established pursuant to the Webb-McCaskill amendment should help us identify the sources of these problems and provide us with constructive recommendations to avoid similar problems in the future.

In addition to the commission language adopted last week, there are significant acquisition reform measures already in this bill, as it came to the floor, that will make improvements in the DOD acquisition system and to wartime contracting. Taken together, these provisions will make the bill that is now before the Senate, by far, the most significant acquisition reform measure to be considered by Congress since the enactment of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act and the Federal Acquisition Reform Act more than 10 years ago.

For example, section 821 of the bill would require increased competition in large ``umbrella contracts'' awarded by the Department of Defense. The Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing in April on the Department of Defense management of the $20 billion so-called LOGCAP contract, under which a company called KBR--until recently, a subsidiary of Halliburton--has provided services to U.S. troops in the field.

Here are some of the things we learned in our hearing:

The company was given work that appears to have far exceeded the scope of the contract; all of this added work was provided to the contractor without competition; the contractor resisted providing us with information that we needed to monitor and control costs; there were almost $2 billion of overcharges on the contract; and the contractor received highly favorable settlements on these overcharges.

When asked why the Army had waited 5 years to split the massive LOGCAP contract among multiple contractors, allowing for greater competition of the work to be performed under the contract, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics gave the following answer: ``I don't have a good answer for you.''

The provision in our bill would avoid the kind of abuses we get in sole-source contracts by ensuring that future contracts of this type provide for the competition of task and delivery orders unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. If our language stays intact, we should never again see the kind of abuses which existed with the Halliburton-KBR umbrella contracts.

Similarly, section 871 of the bill would require tighter regulation and control over private security contractors operating in areas of combat operations. Over the last 4 years, there has been a number of reports of abuses by private security contractors operating in Iraq. There have been allegations, even films, of contractors shooting recklessly at civilians as they drive down the streets of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities. Some of these contractors work for the Department of Defense, but many others work for other Federal agencies or for contractors of other Federal agencies.

Most recently, the Iraqi Government has complained about an incident in which employees of Blackwater allegedly opened fire on innocent Iraqis in downtown Baghdad. According to published reports, Blackwater employees shot into a crush of cars, killing at least 11 Iraqis and wounding 12. Blackwater officials insist their guards were ambushed, but witnesses described this shooting as unprovoked, and Iraq's Interior Ministry has concluded that Blackwater was at fault.

Last week, the Washington Post reported that senior military officials are deeply concerned about this shootout and other similar incidents which could undermine our efforts to combat terrorists and insurgents in Iraq. This is what the Washington Post article reported:

``The military is very sensitive to its relationship that

they've built with the Iraqis being altered or even severely

degraded by actions such as this event''. . . .

``This is a nightmare,'' said a senior U.S. military

official. ``We had guys who saw the aftermath, and it was

very bad. This is going to hurt us badly. It may be worse

than Abu Ghraib, and it comes at a time when we're trying to

have an impact for the long term''. . . .

In interviews involving a dozen U.S. military and

government officials, many expressed . . . concern over the

shootings. . . .

``This is a big mess that I don't think anyone has their

hands around yet,'' said another U.S. military official.

``It's not necessarily a bad thing these guys are being held

accountable. Iraqis hate them, the troops don't particularly

care for them, and they tend to have a know-it-all attitude,

which means they rarely listen to anyone--even the folks that

patrol the ground on a daily basis.''

``Their tendency is shoot first and ask questions later,''

said an Army lieutenant colonel serving in Iraq. Referring to

the September 16 shootings, the officer added, ``None of us

believe they were engaged, but we are all carrying their

black eyes.''

``Many of my peers think Blackwater is oftentimes out of

control,'' said a senior U.S. commander serving in Iraq.

``They often act like cowboys over here . . . not seeming to

play by the same rules everybody else tries to play by.''

The provision in our bill would address this problem by ensuring that the Department of Defense and its combatant commanders are in a position to regulate the conduct of all armed contractors in the battle space, regardless of whether they are employed under contracts of the Department of Defense or other Federal agencies. Under the provision in our bill, private security contractors employed by any Federal agency or any contractor or subcontractor for a Federal agency would be

required for the first time to comply with DOD rules on the use of force and with orders, directions, and instructions issued by combatant commanders relating to force protection, security, health, safety, or relations and interaction with local nationals.

Other provisions in our bill would provide added protection for contractor employees who blow the whistle on fraud, waste, and abuse. They would require the DOD to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the billions of dollars it spends every year to purchase contract services. Our bill will tighten rules for the acquisition of major weapons systems; ensure that we get fair prices when we purchase spare parts for those weapons systems; enhance competition requirements for products purchased from Federal prison industries; and address abuses of undefinitized contract actions.

The root cause of these and all the other problems that we read and hear so much about, or at least most of the other problems, in the defense acquisition system is our failure to maintain an acquisition workforce with the resources and skills that are needed to manage the Department's acquisition system.

Earlier this year, the Acquisition Advisory Panel, chartered pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004, reported that ``curtailed investments in human capital have produced an acquisition workforce that often lacks the training and resources to function effectively.'' And they went on:

The Federal Government does not have the capacity in its

current acquisition workforce necessary to meet the demands

that have been placed on it.

The failure of Department of Defense and other Federal agencies to adequately fund the acquisition workforce, the panel concluded, is `` `penny-wise and pound-foolish,' as it seriously undermines the pursuit of the good value for the expenditure of public resources.''

Senior DOD officials have recognized the deficiencies in the defense acquisition workforce, but they have been unable to obtain significant funds that are needed to remedy the problem. Section 844 of our bill will address this issue by establishing an acquisition workforce development fund to enable the Department of Defense to increase the size and quality of its acquisition workforce. In the first year, we will provide roughly $500 million for this purpose. It is a large sum of money, but it is a small investment to ensure the proper expenditure of more than $200 billion of taxpayers' money every year.

We look forward to working with the House conferees after we pass our bill, hopefully this evening, to make these important provisions on acquisition reform and the acquisition workforce the law of the land.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, first, let me commend the Senator from Florida. As chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee, with his ranking member, the members of that subcommittee have worked through some of the most difficult and thorny issues we faced on this bill this year, and he identified a few of them. He very modestly gives credit to others, but, truly, Senator Nelson deserves most of the credit for working out those very difficult issues on a bipartisan basis.

As a passionate defender of what we should do as a country for the survivors of those men and women we lose in war, I can only assure him we are going to do everything we can possibly do in conference because I assume that had that been brought to a rollcall vote, it would have been unanimous or nearly unanimous on the floor of the Senate. We appreciated his willingness to have that go as part of the managers' package, but for the purpose of that conference, I can assure my dear friend from Florida that there is an assumption on our part that would have been a unanimous or near unanimous vote by the Senate and so, obviously, it is the right thing to do.

I also have a longer statement later--because 5:30 has arrived--about our work as a committee, the subcommittee chairs, the ranking members, and the staff. I will save that statement for after our vote on final passage, which will come immediately after the vote on the Kennedy- Mikulski amendment, but I wanted to add that quick comment.

I thank the Senator for that. The hour of 5:30 has arrived. I ask unanimous consent that the Kennedy-Mikulski amendment, No. 3109 be withdrawn and that there be 2 minutes of debate at this time prior to a vote in relation to the Kennedy-Mikulski amendment, No. 3058; that no amendment be in order to the amendment; that no further amendments be in order; that the debate time be equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to amendment No. 3058; that upon disposition of that amendment, the substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to and that the Senate then vote on the passage of H.R. 1585; that all other provisions of the previous order relating to H.R. 1585 remain in effect and that on Tuesday, October 2, following a period of morning business, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 353, H.R. 3222, the Defense Department Appropriations Act.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, is a request for a quorum call in order at this time?

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

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, the bill we have just adopted is the 46th consecutive annual Defense authorization bill that has come out of our committee and been brought to the Senate for debate and passage. It has been no secret that this is one of the largest and most complex and important pieces of legislation that comes before the Senate every year. Every year since 1961, it has been a challenge to get it passed. Thankfully, because of its vital importance to our Nation, we have always found a way to do so. This year was particularly difficult, as we continue to debate the war in Iraq. Today is the 19th and final day of debate on this bill. Only two other annual Defense authorization bills have required longer to pass. In 1969, the Senate debated the bill for 37 days. In 1970, it was debated for 28 days. History shows that in time of war, the Senate acts as it should and takes the necessary time to carefully consider this bill and its impact on our Nation.

We had over 400 amendments that were filed to this bill. We were able to work with all Senators and pass several large packages of managers' amendments while we were wrestling with Iraq-related amendments. All told, we acted on a total of 214 amendments during the bill's consideration.

Whenever we reach the point of final passage of legislation, we take a moment to thank Members and staff. To some this may seem to be a routine matter. It is not. All of us who make up the Senate should honor its customs and traditions. They are really the foundation of this Senate.

With that as my motivation, I want to take a moment to express my thanks to those who worked so hard and cooperated so well to bring us to final passage of this bill.

First, my thanks go to Senator McCain who is serving as our ranking member for the first time this year. Senator McCain's leadership and determination helped forge this bill through the committee and on to final passage.

Next, I thank and acknowledge our former chairman, Senator Warner. Senator Warner has made innumerable contributions to this bill. This bill would not be here but for the work of Senator Warner. Working within arm's reach of Senator Warner each year for the past 28 years has been truly one of the highlights of my Senate career.

He is a good friend of mine. More importantly, he is a good friend to national defense and to the people who depend upon it and who work for it in this country.

To our majority leader, Senator Reid, and his floor staff, a special word of thanks for giving us the time and the tools to get this bill through the Senate.

To all of our committee members who, again, worked on a bipartisan basis, we appreciate their work. We do not often take the time to express it. I am afraid this will kind of have to be that moment. People do not realize our committee has one quarter of the Senate as its members. We work together in the committee. Our differences on the bill did not divide us. We reported the bill by a unanimous vote.

To Charlie Armstrong in the Office of Senate Legislative Counsel, he did his work skillfully. He proved over 400 times, with those 400 amendments, that he knows how to draft amendments.

To our committee staff members, they truly earned the thanks and recognition of the entire Senate for their

time and their efforts on this legislation.

I want to mention two of the members of our staff who lead our staff and one woman who has served on our committee staff for the past 19 years.

To Rick DeBobes, our committee staff director, he serves us so brilliantly and well and so unselfishly 24/7. He is within earshot, so I will not embarrass him and have him blush other than to say he is so totally indispensable not just to me but to the Senate and all of the staff that work so well with him. Our gratitude.

To Senator McCain's new Republican staff director, Mike Kostiw, his leadership is so effective that it is quite difficult to believe this is Mike's first year.

To Cindy Pearson, our assistant chief clerk and security manager, a special word of thanks and encouragement. Cindy has been serving the committee for the last 19 years. She is the consummate professional in every aspect of her work. She is away from us right now as she undergoes treatment for breast cancer. We want her to know she is ever present in our thoughts and in our prayers. We all look forward to welcoming Cindy Pearson back to the committee family soon.

So Rick's and Mike's and all the other committee staff members' long and hard work and personal sacrifices, day in and day out, to get this bill enacted again this year paid off. They are the backbone of the Senate. They and other people who work for us in this Senate make it possible to turn our ideas into policies and into legislation.

I thank them all. I know I thank them for their expertise and their dedication on behalf of all the members of the committee. They brought us again through to the point of conference with the House. We are hopeful to bring back promptly a conference report. But in the meantime, thanks to them, their professionalism, and their hard work. We are where we are at.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of the entire Armed Services Committee staff be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see my dear friend Senator Warner is here. Again, I cannot say too often what it means to have as a partner John Warner of Virginia.

Mr. President, we have nominations before us for lifetime appointments to the Federal bench of Jennifer Walker Elrod of the Fifth Circuit, Roslynn Renee Mauskopf for the Eastern District of New York, Richard Jones for the Western District of Washington, and Sharion Aycock for the Northern District of Mississippi.

The yeas and nays have not been ordered on any of these, have they?

But no request has been made for the yeas and nays; is that correct?

Mr. President, for the interest of my colleagues, I do not anticipate--I do not intend to ask for the yeas and nays on any of these. I have discussed this with the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, and I believe I am authorized to speak for him that he is not going to be requesting the yeas and nays.

Yes.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Maryland. I know he is going to be speaking on that nomination and stating his reasons for opposition, but I wanted it known by both leaders that I will not be requesting a rollcall vote on any of these. I see the distinguished senior Senator from Mississippi is on the floor and I have advised him of that also.

The Senate continues, as we have all year, to make progress filling judicial vacancies when the White House will work with us. The nominations before us today for lifetime appointments to the Federal bench are Jennifer Walker Elrod for the Fifth Circuit, Roslynn Renee Mauskopf for the Eastern District of New York, Richard Jones for the Western District of Washington, and Sharion Aycock for the Northern District of Mississippi. They each have the support of both home State Senators. I thank Senators Murray, Cantwell, Cochran, Lott, Hutchinson, Cornyn, Schumer and Clinton for their work in connection with these nominations.

The progress we have made this year in considering and confirming judicial nominations is sometimes lost amid the partisan sniping over the most controversial nominations.

If the nominations we consider today are confirmed, the Senate will have already confirmed 33 nominations for lifetime appointments to the Federal bench this session alone. That is more judicial nominations than were confirmed in all of 2005 or 2006 with a Republican majority. It is 16 more confirmations than were achieved during the entire 1996 session, nearly doubling that session's total of 17, when Republicans stalled consideration of President Clinton's nominations.

Judge Elrod would be the Fourth Circuit court nominee confirmed so far this year. That is more than the number of President Clinton's circuit court nominations confirmed by this time in 1999 with a Republican-led Senate and four more than the Republican-led Senate confirmed in the entire 1996 session. That was the session in which not a single circuit court nominee was confirmed. That is more than were confirmed in all of 1993 and equals the total in 1983.

If the nominations are confirmed today, the Senate will have confirmed 21 circuit court nominations and 133 total Federal judicial nominees in my tenure as Judiciary chairman. During the Bush Presidency, more circuit judges, more district judges--more total judges--have been confirmed in the first 24 months that I served as Judiciary chairman than during the 2-year tenures of either of the two Republican chairmen working with Republican Senate majorities.

Today, we consider a nominee to the Fifth Circuit. During the Clinton administration several outstanding nominees to the Fifth Circuit were pocket filibustered. They included Judge Jorge Rangel of Texas, Enrique Moreno of Texas and Alston Johnson of Louisiana. They were pocket filibustered without a hearing or committee consideration. In contrast, the Judiciary Committee has proceeded with this nomination.

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts will list 44 judicial vacancies after today's confirmations. The President has sent us only 20 nominations for these remaining vacancies. Twenty-four of these vacancies--more than half--have no nominee. Of the 16 vacancies deemed by the Administrative Office to be judicial emergencies, the President has yet to send us nominees for half of them. Of the 15 circuit court

vacancies, 6--more than a third--are without a nominee. If the President would decide to work with the Senators from Michigan, Rhode Island, Maryland, California, New Jersey, and Virginia, we could be in position to make even more progress.

We have helped cut the circuit vacancies from a high mark of 32 in the early days of this administration, to as few as 13. Contrast that with the Republican-led Senate's lack of action on President Clinton's moderate and qualified nominees that resulted in increasing circuit vacancies during the Clinton years from 17 to 26. During those years, the Republican-led Senate engaged in strenuous and successful efforts under the radar to keep circuit judgeships vacant in anticipation of a Republican President.

More than 60 percent of current circuit court judges were appointed by Republican Presidents, with the current President having appointed more than 30 percent of the active circuit judges already.

Two of the vacancies being filled today are categorized by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts as judicial emergency vacancies. With these confirmations we will have proceeded to fill 18 such vacancies this year.

Jennifer Walker Elrod is a judge on the 190th District Court for Harris County, TX, a position she has held since 2002. A native of Port Arthur, TX, and a graduate of Baylor University and Harvard Law School, Judge Elrod clerked for Judge Sim Lake on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas and spent 8 years in private practice at Baker Botts before joining the bench.

Roslynn Renee Mauskopf has served as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York since her 2002 appointment by President Bush. Ms. Mauskopf received her B.A. from Brandeis and her law degree from Georgetown before spending 13 years as assistant district attorney in the New York County District Attorney's Office and serving a stint as New York State's inspector general.

Richard Anthony Jones has been a judge on the King County Superior Court since 1994. Previously, Judge Jones, a graduate of Seattle University and the University of Washington School of Law, served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Western District of Washington, staff attorney for the Port of Seattle, and deputy prosecuting attorney for King County, also spending 6 years in private practice at Bogle and Gates.

Sharion Aycock has been a state trial judge on the First Circuit Court District in Tupelo, MS, since 2003. A native of Tupelo, MS, Judge Aycock, who received her B.A. from Mississippi State University and her J.D. from Mississippi College School of Law, served for 8 years as Itawamba County prosecuting attorney, and spent time in private practice in Mississippi as a solo practitioner and at law firms.

I congratulate the nominees and their families on their confirmations today.

The Judiciary Committee has reported dozens of measures to the Senate that await action, from privacy legislation to war profiteering legislation to court legislation, all on a bipartisan basis. Yet we are stalled on several important matters.

I have spoken before of the Republican objection to our going to conference to finish work on the Court Security Improvement Act, S. 378, which the committee reported to the Senate back in March. We had to overcome a filibuster just to consider it. It ultimately passed the Senate 97 to zero. We are being prevented from going to conference to resolve differences with the House by Republican objection.

I have spoken before about the War Profiteering Prevention Act, S. 119, what has been stalled for months by unspecified Republican objections.

I have spoken before about the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Act, S. 535. It was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee, yet a Republican Senator objected to Senate passage this week.

Similarly there is a modest bill to extend temporary judgeships in five districts, S. 1327. That simple bill is likewise being prevented from passage by a Republican objection.

Today, I want to focus on another important measure, the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act.

Two months ago, the Senate Judiciary Committee originated the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act of 2007, a legislative package that responds to the tragic deaths that occurred this past April on the campus of Virginia Tech. We tried to show deference to Governor Kaine and the task forces at work in Virginia and to complement their work and recommendations. Working with several Senators, including Senators Boxer, Reed, Specter, Feingold, Schumer, and Durbin, the Committee originated this bill and reported it before the commencement of the academic year in the hope that the full Senate could pass these critical school safety improvements this fall.

Over the past 2 weeks, Senator Schumer and I have tried separately to pass the component of the bill designed to fix flaws in the Nation's background check system. Regrettably, our efforts were blocked by a single Senator.

I do not think the Senate should continue to stand by and wait for the next horrific school tragedy to make the critical changes necessary to insure safety in our schools and on our college campuses. Risks of school violence will not go away just because Congress may shift its focus. In just the last few weeks we have seen tragedy at Delaware State and Memphis, as well as incidents in California and New York. I urge the Senate to move aggressively with the comprehensive school safety legislation.

It includes background check improvements together with other sensible yet effective safety improvement measures supported by law enforcement across the country. Accordingly, I urge the Senate to take up and swiftly pass S. 2084. If we are prohibited by objection from doing so by unanimous consent, then let us move to it and let those with objections seek to amend those provisions to which they object.

There are too many incidents at too many colleges and schools nationwide. This terrorizes students and their parents. We should be doing what we can to help. Just this past week, a troubled student wearing a Fred Flintstone mask and carrying a rifle through campus was arrested at St. John's University in Queens, NY, prompting authorities to lock down the campus for 3 hours.

The next day, an armed 17-year-old on the other side of the country in Oroville, CA, held students hostage at Las Plumas High School, which also resulted in a lock-down. The students in these situations escaped with their lives.

University of Memphis student Taylor Bradford was not so lucky. He was killed on campus this past Sunday morning in what university officials believe was a targeted attack. He was 21 years old. Shalita Middleton and Nathaniel Pew were not so lucky. They were both wounded during an incident at Delaware State and are still hospitalized from the gun shot wounds with Ms. Middleton still in serious condition. They are each only 17 years old.

The School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act responds directly to incidents like these by squarely addressing the problem of violence in our schools in several ways. The bill enlists the States as partners in the dissemination of critical information by making significant improvements to the National Instant Background Check System, known as the NICS system. The bill also authorizes Federal assistance for programs to improve the safety and security of our schools and institutions of higher education, provides equitable benefits to law enforcement serving those institutions, and funds pilot programs to develop cutting-edge prevention and intervention programs for our schools. The bill also clarifies and strengthens 2 existing statutes--the Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act and the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act--which are designed to improve public safety.

Specifically, title I would improve the safety and security of students both at the elementary and secondary school level, and on college and university campuses. The K-12 improvements are drawn from a bill that Senator Boxer introduced in April, and I want to thank Senator Boxer for her hard work on this issue. The improvements include increased funding for much-needed infrastructure changes to improve security as well as the establishment of hotlines and tip-lines, which

will enable students to report potentially dangerous situations to school administrators before they occur.

To address the new realities of campus safety, title I also creates a matching grant program for campus safety and security to be administered out of the COPS Office of the Department of Justice.

The grant program would allow institutions of higher education to apply, for the first time, directly for Federal funds to make school safety and security improvements. The program is authorized to be appropriated at $50,000,000 for the next 2 fiscal years. While this amounts to just $3 per student each year, it will enable schools to more effectively respond to dangerous situations on campus.

Title II of the bill seeks to improve the NICS system. The senseless loss of life at Virginia Tech revealed deep flaws in the transfer of information relevant to gun purchases between the States and the Federal Government. The defects in the current system permitted the perpetrator of this terrible crime to obtain a firearm even though a judge had declared him to be a danger to himself and thus ineligible under Federal law.

Seung-Hui Cho was not eligible to buy a weapon given his mental health history, but he was still able to pass a background check because data was missing from the system. We are working to close gaps in the NICS system. Title II will correct these problems, and for the first time will create a legal regime in which disqualifying mental health records, both at the State and Federal level, would regularly be reported into the NICS system.

Title III would make sworn law enforcement officers who work for private institutions of higher education and rail carriers eligible for death and disability benefits, and for funds administered under the Byrne grant program and the bulletproof vest partnership grant program.

Providing this equitable treatment is in the best interest of our Nation's educators and students and will serve to place the support of the Federal Government behind the dedicated law enforcement officers who serve and protect private colleges and universities nationwide. I commend Senator Jack Reed for his leadership in this area.

Title IV of the bill makes improvements to the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003. These amendments to existing law will streamline the system by which qualified retired and active officers can be certified under LEOSA. It serves us all when we permit qualified officers, with a demonstrated commitment to law enforcement and no adverse employment history, to protect themselves and their families wherever they may be.

Title V incorporates the PRECAUTION Act, which Senators Feingold and Specter asked to have included. This provision authorizes grants to develop prevention and intervention programs for our schools.

Finally, title VI incorporates the Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act of 2007, at the request of Senator Kennedy.

Let us go forward and act now on this important bill. The Virginia Tech Review Panel--a body commissioned by Governor Tim Kaine to study the Virginia Tech tragedy--recently issued its findings based on a 4- month long investigation of the incident and its aftermath. This bill would adopt a number of recommendations from the Review Panel aimed at improving school safety planning and reporting information to NICS.

We must not miss this opportunity to implement these initiatives nationwide, and to take concrete steps to ensure the safety of our kids.

I recognize that there is no panacea to end the sad phenomenon of school violence. The recent tragedies should prompt us to respond in realistic and meaningful ways when we are presented with such challenges. I hope the Senate can promptly move this bill forward to invest in the safety of our students and better support law enforcement officers across the country.

Mr. President, I apologize to my colleagues for my voice. We seem to have enough matter in the air to affect it. I look forward to the fact that in a couple of days I will be in Vermont where the air is much nicer, although I do love this area. I once had a longtime resident of Washington, DC, sitting on the front lawn of my farm in Middlesex, VT, looking out over miles of valleys surrounded by mountains. You don't see another person, just this magnificent view. It was a clear day.

I said to him: There, what do you think of that view?

He said: I don't like it.

I said: What do you mean? You came here from Washington, and you are seeing one of the most beautiful views anywhere in the State of Vermont, and you don't like it? What don't you like about it?

He said: I don't trust air that I cannot see.

Well, we cannot see the air there, but, boy, we can breathe it. I enjoy that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Maryland following that.

Mr. President, it's a privilege to join my colleagues Senator Dodd, Senator Domenici and Senator Ensign in introducing the Mental Health in Schools Act of 2007 to assist the Nation's public schools in providing better access to mental health services for their students.

The need for these services has never been greater. The tragic events at Columbine, Nickel Mines, and Virginia Tech underscore the fact that when left untreated, childhood mental disorders can lead to academic failure, family conflicts, substance abuse, violence, and suicide.

Comprehensive school mental health program should be designed for all students. They should obviously include both identification and referral of specific individuals for treatment, but they should also include programs and services that promote positive mental health and prevent mental health problems for a broader population of students.

Strong mental health, similar to strong physical health, makes it possible for children to develop socially, emotionally, and intellectually. We know that mental illnesses often appear for the first time during childhood and adolescence. One in five children has a diagnosable mental disorder, yet three-quarters of children and youth who need mental health services do not receive them. With proper care and treatment, approximately 80 percent of people with mental illness experience a significant reduction of symptoms and a better quality of life.

Our schools are important settings for recognizing and addressing children's mental disorders. In fact schools often function as the de facto mental health system for children and adolescents. Especially in rural areas, schools are likely to provide the only mental health services available, for children.

Effective school mental health programs reflect the cooperation and commitment of families, students, educators, and other community partners.

However, of the 95,000 public schools in the United States, only half report having formal partnerships with community mental health providers to deliver mental health services.

The services and support provided through these partnerships should be family-centered and community-centered, and should also be culturally and linguistically appropriate.

The goal of the Mental Health in Schools Act is to assist local communities in developing comprehensive school mental health programs that provide a continuum of services for students.

I urge the Senate to join us in supporting schools and communities in expanding their mental health programs to make them more comprehensive, so that our school children across the nation can receive the proper support and services they need in order to thrive in our society and become productive citizens.

I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, of all the challenges we face today, one of the most important is creating greater opportunities for the Nation's children to learn and succeed in life. If America is to remain competitive in the global economy, if all Americans are to have access to the American dream, we must ensure that all our children receive a good education.

A good education begins with a good teacher. One of the most significant steps we can take to improve the Nation's schools is to do more to support the recruitment, training, and retention of high quality teachers.

We owe a great debt to America's teachers. Day in and day out, in thousands of schools across the country, they struggle to give our children the knowledge and skills they need to succeed. Our teachers are at the forefront of the constant effort to improve public education. It is their vision, energy, hard work, and dedication that will make all the difference in successfully meeting this challenge.

As Shirley Hufstedler, the Nation's first Secretary of Education, said:

``The role of the teacher remains the highest calling of a

free people. To the teacher, America entrusts her most

precious resource, her children; and asks that they be

prepared, in all their glorious diversity, to face the rigors

of individual participation in a democratic society.''

All children need and deserve teachers who can help them succeed. We in Congress must do all in our power to help them do so.

We took a major step toward this goal when Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act, which recognized that all students deserve first-rate teachers to help them reach their potential in school. The law established a goal to guarantee a highly qualified teacher in every classroom by the end of 2006. Few states have reached that ambitious target, and much more remains to be done to achieve success.

Extensive research shows that teacher quality is the most important educational factor affecting student achievement. One recent study showed that having a highly qualified teacher can improve student academic growth by as much as one full year. Another showed that students taught by highly qualified teachers for 3 consecutive years significantly outperformed their peers on academic assessments. A comparison of low-performing and high-performing elementary schools with similar student populations found that differences in teacher qualifications accounted for 90 percent of the difference in performance in reading and math. There's strong evidence that a good teacher can make all the difference in closing achievement gaps for the neediest students in our public schools.

Investing in teacher quality is cost effective and fiscally responsible. A recent study involving 1,000 school districts found that additional dollars invested in more highly qualified teachers resulted in greater improvements in student achievement than any other use of school resources.

Unfortunately, research also shows that high quality teachers are the most inequitably distributed educational resource in the Nation. The most at-risk students are too often taught by the least prepared, least experienced, and least qualified teachers. Students in high poverty schools are twice as likely to be taught by teachers with less than 3 years of experience. Such teachers are less likely to receive the resources and support they need to succeed. Often they leave the profession and further destabilize already struggling schools. By contrast, children of the affluent and the privileged are much more likely to be taught by highly prepared and qualified, expert teachers with broad knowledge and experience in the subjects they teach.

To enable more teachers to receive the assistance they need to improve their instruction, ensure that every child receives a high quality education, and level the playing field for America's students, Congress must act on a comprehensive plan to build and sustain a strong teacher workforce.

That is why today I am introducing the Teacher Excellence for All Children Act of 2007, the TEACH Act. Its purpose is to assist the States and districts in better recruiting, training, retaining and supporting our teachers. Our distinguished colleague in the House, Congressman George Miller, is introducing companion legislation, and I commend him for his leadership on this issue.

The TEACH Act addresses four specific challenges head on:

It increases the supply of outstanding teachers and provides incentives to attract them to high-need schools;

It ensures all children have teachers with expertise in the subjects they teach;

It improves teaching by identifying and rewarding the best teaching practices and by expanding professional development opportunities; and

It helps schools retain teachers and principals by providing the support they need to succeed.

Enrollment in public schools has reached an all-time high of 53 million students, and is expected to keep increasing over the next decade. To educate this expanding population, additional high quality teachers are urgently needed.

Many schools today face a crisis in recruiting and retaining highly- skilled teachers, particularly in the Nation's poorest communities. We now have approximately 3 million public school teachers across the country. Mr. President, 2 million new teachers will be needed in the next 10 years to serve the growing student population. Yet we are not even retaining the teachers we have today. A third of all teachers leave during their first 3 years. Almost half leave during the first 5 years. Over 200,000 teachers leave the profession each year--6 percent of the teaching workforce.

The shortage of highly qualified teachers is especially acute in the fields most essential to America's future competitiveness, and particularly affects low-income students. A third of all math classes in high-poverty high schools are taught by teachers who don't have a degree in math, compared to just 18 percent of such classes in low- poverty schools. Over half of all science classes in such schools are taught by teachers without a degree in their field, compared to just 22 percent of such classes in low-poverty schools. Meanwhile, students in other nations are surpassing American students in math and science achievement.

Too often, teachers also lack the training and support needed to do well in the classroom. They are paid on average almost $8,000 a year less than graduates in other fields, and the gap widens to more than $23,000 after 15 years of teaching. Mr. President, 37 percent of teachers cite low salaries as a main factor for leaving the classroom before retirement.

The TEACH Act will do more to recruit and retain highly qualified teachers, particularly in schools and subjects where they are needed most. The bill provides financial incentives to encourage talented individuals to pursue and remain in this essential profession, and it offers higher salaries, tax breaks, and greater loan forgiveness.

To attract motivated and talented individuals to teaching, the bill provides up-front tuition assistance, $4,000 a year, to high-performing undergraduate students who agree to commit to teach for 4 years in high-need areas and in subjects such as math, science, and special education. It also creates a competitive grant program for colleges and universities to recruit teachers among students majoring in math, science, or foreign language.

The TEACH Act will also help deliver access to the best teachers for the neediest students to help them succeed, and will help keep these teachers where they are most needed. In high-poverty schools, teacher turnover is 33 percent higher than in other schools. Clearly, we must do a better job of attracting better teachers to the neediest classrooms and do more to reward their efforts, so that they stay in the classroom. To encourage expert teachers to teach where they are needed, the bill provides funding to school districts to reward teachers who transfer to schools with the greatest challenges, and provides incentives for teachers working in math, science, and special education.

The bill establishes a framework to develop and use the systems needed at the State and local levels to improve teaching and to recognize exceptional teaching in the classroom. It encourages the development of data systems to provide teachers with additional data to inform and improve classroom instruction. It also encourages the development of model teacher advancement programs that recognize and reward different roles, responsibilities, knowledge, and positive results with competitive compensation initiatives.

Too often, teachers lack the training they need before reaching the classroom. On the job, they have few sources of support to meet the challenges they face in the classroom, and few opportunities for ongoing professional development to expand their skills. The bill responds to the needs of teachers in their early years in the classroom by creating new and innovative models that use proven strategies to support beginning teachers. New teachers will have access to mentoring, opportunities for cooperative planning with their peers, and a special transition year to ease into the pressures of entering the classroom. Veteran teachers will have an opportunity to improve their skills through peer mentoring and review. Other support includes professional development delivered through teaching centers to improve training and working conditions for teachers.

Since good leadership is also essential for schools, the bill provides important incentives and support for principals by improving recruitment and training for them as well.

This legislation was developed with input from a broad and diverse group of educational professionals and experts, including the Alliance for Excellent Education, the American Federation of Teachers, the Business Roundtable, the Center for American Progress Action Fund, the Children's Defense Fund, the Education Trust, the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, the National Council on Teacher Quality, the National Council of La Raza, the National Education Association, New Leaders for New Schools, the New Teacher Center, Operation Public Education, the Teacher Advancement Program Foundation, Teach for America and the Teaching Commission. I thank them all for their help and their work on behalf of our nation's children.

The TEACH Act is good for America's children; it's good for America's economy; and it's good for America's future. It is an essential part of our ongoing effort to ensure that ``No Child Left Behind'' becomes a reality and not just a slogan.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of Chairman Leahy's bill, S. 1327, which will reestablish temporary judgeships where needed in the district courts and extend other temporary judgeships that are about to expire. The bill will reestablish a 10-year temporary judgeship in the Eastern District of California, where it is sorely needed.

The Eastern District has had a temporary judgeship before, but it expired in the fall of 2004. Even before the temporary judgeship expired, the caseload in the district was already the second highest in the Nation: 787 filings per judge, which was almost 50 percent more than the national average.

Since that time, the situation in the Eastern District has grown even more dire. Average caseloads across the Nation have declined, but in the Eastern District they have increased by 18 percent.

The Eastern District of California now has the highest caseload in the country: 927 filings per judge. That is twice as many cases as the national average.

It is no exaggeration to say that the judges of the Eastern District are in desperate need of relief. They have continued to serve with distinction in the face of the crushing caseloads. Mr. President, two of the court's senior judges still carry full caseloads after taking senior status. Two other senior judges are also continuing to hear cases in the district. There is another reason why it is imperative for the Senate to act now and adopt this bill. In just a few months, there will be a vacancy in the Eastern District when Chief Judge David Levi leaves the bench after 17 years of distinguished service.

It is my hope that Chief Judge Levi's seat can be filled as quickly as possible with a well qualified nominee. But, as a practical matter, it is unlikely that the confirmation process for a new judge will be complete when Chief Judge Levi leaves office.

This will leave the Eastern District with still fewer judges to handle its highest-in-the-Nation caseload. The district will need even more help to ensure that cases continue to be handled with the care, attention, and promptness that are essential to the fair administration of justice.

I view this bill as an important first step toward getting California all of the judges it needs. According to the 2007 recommendations of the Judicial Conference, California needs a total of 12 new judges, more judges than are needed in any other State in the Nation. Four of those judges are needed in the Eastern District alone. By adding a temporary judgeship in the district, this bill will help fill the gap until the Senate acts to carry out the Judicial Conference's recommendations.

I thank Chairman Leahy for taking this important first step toward ensuring that the Federal courts in California have all the judges they need.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Kennedy, Levin, Menendez, Mikulski, Clinton, Durbin, Boxer and Lautenberg in introducing the Long-Range Sniper Rifle Safety Act of 2007, which would regulate a single type of firearm, 50 BMG caliber sniper rifles.

Mr. President, 50 BMG caliber sniper rifles are among the most dangerous firearms in the world. These sniper rifles are capable of bringing down airplanes and helicopters that are taking off or landing, and they can pierce light armored personnel vehicles. They have extraordinary range, up to a mile with accuracy, with a maximum distance of up to 4 miles. Under President Clinton, the State Department suspended all export of these weapons for civilian use in foreign countries. The Bush administration initially changed this rule to allow such sales, but after 9/11 it decided to reinstate this ban.

Yet here in the United States, our laws continue to classify these weapons as ``long guns'', subject to the least government regulation of any firearms. Current Federal law makes no distinction between a .22 caliber target rifle, a .30-06 caliber hunting weapon, and this large- caliber .50 BMG combat weapon. In some States, youngsters who are 14 years old can get .50 BMG caliber sniper rifles, with no limitation on second-

hand sales. In fact, anyone who can own a rifle can buy a .50 BMG caliber sniper rifle. No permits. No licenses. No wait.

That is why I am introducing this legislation today, just as I have introduced similar legislation in the last 3 sessions of Congress. The bill would:

Add these uniquely powerful sniper rifles to the list of firearms classified as ``destructive devices'', which would mean they must be registered when purchased or sold;

require the same registration for any ``copycat'' sniper rifles that might be developed in the future with destructive power that is equivalent to the .50 BMG caliber sniper rifle; and

allow people who already possess .50 BMG caliber sniper weapons up to 7 years to register their existing firearms, by implementing a registration process similar to what was used when ``street sweeper'' and other firearms were reclassified as ``destructive devices'' in 1994.

This bill would not ban any firearms, including .50 BMG caliber sniper rifles. Instead, it would change the law by treating .50 BMG caliber sniper rifles in the same way we now treat ``street sweeper'' shotguns, silencers, and any rifle with a dimension larger than .50 caliber. It would regulate these weapons, making it harder for terrorists and others to buy these combat weapons for illegitimate use.

This is not your classic hunting rifle. These weapons weigh up to 28 pounds, and have a price tag of between $2,200 and $6,750. And they fire the most powerful commonly available cartridges, the massive BMG, Browning Machine Gun, bullet, which has a diameter of \1/2\ inch and a length of 3-6 inches.

These rounds are almost as big as my hand. The Congressional Research Service says that a .50 BMG caliber cartridge weighs four and a half times more, and has five times more propellant, than the cartridges used in similar midsize rifles, like the .308 Winchester.

This is a weapon designed to kill people efficiently, and destroy machinery, at a great distance. And the distances are frankly astonishing. In fact, this weapon was able to kill a person from a greater distance than any other sniper rifle with a world-record confirmed distance of 2,430 meters, a mile and a half away.

These weapons are ``accurate'' up to 2,000 yards, a distance that means it will strike a standard target within this range more than a mile away. To illustrate what this means, a shooter standing on Alcatraz Island off of San Francisco could sight and kill a person at Pier 39.

And the gun has a maximum range of up to 7,500 yards, meaning that while accuracy cannot be guaranteed, the round can strike a target at this distance. Imagine 75 football fields lined up end to end, a distance of over 4 miles. This means a shooter at the Sausalito marina could send bullets crashing into the San Francisco marina.

In short, these are military combat-style weapons. The .50 BMG cartridge has been used by our forces in machine guns since World War I, and our military has utilized .50 BMG caliber sniper rifles in the gulf war, and now in Afghanistan and Iraq. They can shoot through almost anything, a bunker, bulletproof glass, a 3\1/2\ inch thick manhole cover, a 600-pound safe.

But as the GAO noted in 1999, many of these guns also wind up in the hands of domestic and international terrorists, religious cults, international and domestic drug traffickers, and violent criminals.

In 1998, Federal law enforcement apprehended three men belonging to a radical Michigan militia group. The three were charged with plotting to bomb Federal office buildings, destroy highways and utilities. They were also charged with plotting to assassinate a Governor, and other high-ranking political and judicial officers. A .50-caliber sniper rifle was found in their possession along with a cache of weapons that included three illegal machine guns.

One doomsday cult headquartered in Montana purchased 10 of these guns and stockpiled them in an underground bunker, along with thousands of rounds of ammunition and other guns.

At least one .50-caliber gun was recovered by Mexican authorities after a shoot-out with an international drug cartel in that country. The gun was originally purchased in Wyoming.

Since the GAO report, it was also revealed in a federal trial in Manhattan that al-Qaida received .50-caliber sniper rifles, rifles manufactured right here in the United States. Essam al Ridi, an al- Qaida associate, testified that he acquired 25 Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifles and shipped them to al-Qaida members in Afghanistan.

What sort of damage could these weapons do in the wrong hands? The U.S. Air Force conducted a study, and determined that planes parked on a fully protected U.S. airbase would be as vulnerable as ``ducks on a pond'' against a sniper with a .50-caliber weapon, because the weapons can shoot from beyond most airbase perimeters.

The RAND Corporation confirmed this, releasing a report which identified 11 potential terrorist scenarios at Los Angeles International Airport. In one scenario, ``a sniper, using a .50 caliber rifle, fires at parked and taxiing aircraft.'' The report concludes: ``we were unable to identify any truly satisfactory solutions'' for such an attack.

One need not even search for reports, the weapon's manufacturers admit it. One Barrett .50 caliber brochure says:

[A] round of ammunition purchased for less than ten U.S.

dollars can be used to destroy or disable a modern jet

aircraft. The compressor sections of jet engines or the

transmissions of helicopters are likely targets for the

weapon, making it capable of destroying multimillion dollar

aircraft with a single hit delivered to a vital area.

And it is not just aircraft. A terrorist using this rifle could punch holes in pressurized chemical tanks, igniting combustible materials or leaking hazardous gases. Or penetrate armored vehicles used by law enforcement, or protective limousines, like those used here in Washington.

No wonder a broad coalition of law enforcement officers and groups, detailing the threat that these weapons pose to our first responders, said:

The fact that these weapons have a range of more than four

miles and can take down commercial airliners is reason enough

to keep these weapons off our streets. It is of special

concern to the law enforcement community that these weapons

of war are capable of penetrating our special operations

vehicles, tactical equipment and helicopters.

This gun is so powerful that one dealer told undercover Government Accountability Office investigators:

You'd better buy one soon. It's only a matter of time

before someone lets go a round on a range that travels so

far, it hits a school bus full of kids. The government will

definitely ban .50-calibers. This gun is just too powerful.

In fact, many ranges used for target practice do not even have enough safety features to accommodate these guns.

Special ammunition for these guns is also readily available in stores and on the Internet. This is perfectly legal. Moreover, ``armor- piercing incendiary'' ammunition, which explodes on impact, can be purchased online, as demonstrated in a ``60 Minutes'' news report. Several ammunition dealers were willing to sell armor-piercing ammunition to an undercover GAO investigator, even after the investigator said he wanted the ammunition to pierce an armored limousine or maybe to shoot down a helicopter.

The bottom line is that the .50 BMG caliber sniper rifle is a national security threat requiring action by Congress. It makes no sense for us to spend billions of dollars on homeland security while we allow terrorists and criminals to get weapons that can serve as tools for terrorism.

The legislation that I am introducing has been carefully tailored, and refines my earlier bills. In fact, it is narrower than my earlier bills, in that it regulates only .50 ``BMG'' caliber sniper rifles, not all .50 caliber rifles.

There is no doubt that the .50 BMG caliber is the most powerful commonly available cartridge not considered a destructive device under the National Firearms Act. It is in a class by itself. And that's why this bill puts .50 BMG caliber sniper rifles into the class of firearms called destructive devices. Because that is where they belong.

Congress would not be alone in treating the .50 BMG caliber sniper rifle as the unique weapon of destruction that it is. My home State of California has regulated .50 BMG caliber sniper rifles since 2004, in a law signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The bill I introduce would adopt a similar registration system nationwide.

In fact, Congress itself has previously recognized the unique destructive properties of this weapon. Ever since 2000, our DOD Appropriations bills have contained a special restriction on the Department of Defense's ability to sell surplus armor-piercing ammunition for .50 caliber weapons to civilians through its demilitarization program.

This is a weapon that should not be openly available to terrorists and criminals, but should be responsibly controlled through carefully crafted regulation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.