A joint resolution to provide for the reconsideration and revision of the proposed constitution of the United States Virgin Islands to correct provisions inconsistent with the Constitution and Federal law.

Mr. President, with the approaching hearings before the Judiciary Committee on the nomination of Eric Holder to be Attorney General, I thought it might be useful to frame some of the issues and put them into perspective, at least my perspective, in advance of the hearings, and to advise Mr. Holder in some greater detail than our brief meeting, when he paid his courtesy call a few weeks ago, to discuss some of those issues so he would be in a better position to respond.

I begin with the view that I wish to be helpful to President-elect Obama in his dealings with the enormous problems which face our Nation. I have come to know President-elect Obama in his capacity as Senator for the last 4 years. His office is right down the hallway. I consider him a friend, and certainly we are in need of action on some of the enormous problems our Nation faces. We approach these problems in the context of our constitutional roles. The Constitution, in article I, gives certain powers to the Congress and, in article II, certain powers to the executive branch. The core of our constitutional Government is checks and balances so we have that responsibility to have oversight and to give our candid judgments. Frequently, it is more helpful to say no than to say yes. When we deal with the position of Attorney General, we have a role which is significantly different from other Cabinet officers.

For example, Cabinet officers carry out the President's policies on a wide variety of issues and, to an extent, so does the Attorney General. But the Attorney General has a significantly different role in his responsibility to the people and to the rule of law. Senator Leahy and I wrote extensively on this subject, published last October in Politico.

Some Attorneys General have been very compliant with the administration and have not fared very well historically. Attorney General Harry Daugherty was sullied by the Teapot Dome scandal. Although ultimately cleared, he resigned amid allegations of impropriety. We had the Attorney General during the administration of President Roosevelt, Attorney General Homer Cummings, who yielded to the court-packing plan, certainly not the sort of institutional integrity which we would look for in an Attorney General. Some Attorneys General have been very diligent. Perhaps the best example is Attorney General Elliot Richardson, who resigned rather than fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox during the administration of President Nixon, and Deputy Attorney General Bill Ruckelshaus followed suit.

In today's press, there are reports about the distinguished career of Attorney General Griffin Bell, who just died. One of the hallmarks of Attorney General Bell's career was his willingness to say no to President Carter, who had appointed him. President Carter, it is reported, wanted a certain prosecution brought. Attorney General Bell said that it wasn't an appropriate matter for a criminal prosecution. Attorney General Bell advised President Carter that the way he would get that prosecution brought would be to appoint a compliant Attorney General, that he would resign before he would undertake that prosecution.

We have seen, regrettably, with the administration of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, yielding to the Executive will without upholding the rule of law; the hearings conducted by the Judiciary Committee, for which I was ranking member, over the termination of U.S. attorneys; the attitude of Attorney General Gonzales on habeas corpus, testifying that there was no positive grant of habeas corpus in the Constitution, notwithstanding the explicit clause which says habeas corpus may be suspended only in time of rebellion or invasion. So this is a very key and critical appointment.

The Attorney General also has enormous responsibilities in advising the President more generally on the scope of Executive authority. Mr. Holder will doubtless be questioned at some length on the issue of the terrorist surveillance program, warrantless wiretaps, and the meaning of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; and where does congressional authority under article I stop on the flat prohibition against wiretaps without warrants, contrasted with the Executive's power as Commander in Chief under article II; and what are the Attorney General designate's views on attorney-client privilege restrictions, a matter which he initiated in 1999 and which has seen further restrictions in the Thompson memorandum and subsequently. Last Congress I introduced legislation to try to deal with that. There is also the reporter's privilege issue, where the Department of Justice has opposed the privilege for reporters where they have been held in contempt. A New York Times reporter was held in jail for some 85 days after the source of the confidential disclosure had been addressed. These are just a few of the issues which we will be looking at in the confirmation hearings of Attorney General Holder.

With respect to Mr. Holder, specifically, he has had an outstanding academic and professional record--I acknowledged that early on-- prestigious college and law school, Columbia; a judge of the District of Columbia Superior Court; involved in Department of Justice prosecution teams; and later served as Deputy Attorney General. But aside from these qualifications on Mr. Holder's resume, there is also the issue of character. Sometimes it is more important for the Attorney General to have the stature and the courage to say no instead of to say yes.

There are three specific matters which will be inquired into during the course of Mr. Holder's confirmation hearing. The first one involves a highly publicized pardon, the Marc Rich pardon. Mr. Holder testified he was ``not intimately involved'' in the Rich pardon and he assumed that regular procedures were being followed. But when you take a look at some of the details as to what was disclosed in the hearing by the House of Representatives and in the hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I chaired 15 months after the pardon, Mr. Holder met privately with Mr. Rich's attorney. According to Mr. Holder's own testimony, he tried to facilitate a meeting between the prosecutors in the Southern District of New York and Rich's attorney. Rich's attorney, Mr. Quinn, testified that Mr. Holder advised him to go straight to the White House rather than through the pardon office, which is the regular procedure. Mr. Quinn produced an e-mail from himself to a colleague with the subject line ``Eric,'' in which he noted that ``he says go straight to the WH, also says timing is good. We should get it in soon.''

That is not conclusive, but these are matters to be inquired into. The pardon attorney was opposed to the pardon, but he never issued a recommendation because he didn't think the pardon was under serious consideration. Then the White House requested Mr. Holder's opinion, and he is quoted as saying that he was ``neutral, leaning towards favorable'' on the pardon.

On this case of the record, with the very close connections between Mr. Rich and very sizable contributions to the Clinton library and very sizable contributions to President Clinton's party, these questions inevitably arise and have not been answered satisfactorily. During the course of the hearings, both in the House and in the Senate, where I chaired the full committee hearing, the claim of executive privilege was made. We face a little different situation when we are looking at a confirmation hearing for Attorney General, in terms of the legitimate scope of Senators' inquiry which will be pursued. It ought to be focused on the fact that the charges against Rich were very serious. They involved tax evasion, fraud, trading with the enemy,

with Iran. It should also be emphasized that the U.S. attorney who prosecuted the case was opposed to the pardon and, in fact, refused to meet with Mr. Rich.

The second issue which requires a hearing on the issue of character and the determination as to whether Mr. Holder was yielding to the President to give him or the Vice President a conclusion they wanted to hear was the issue of the appointment of an independent counsel on the allegations that Vice President Gore engaged in fundraising from the White House in violation of Federal law.

Mr. Holder, in his capacity as Deputy Attorney General, was advising Attorney General Reno. Attorney General Reno came to the conclusion that independent counsel ought not to be appointed. The House of Representatives committee filed this report:

. . . the failure of the Attorney General to follow the law

and appoint an independent counsel for the entire campaign

finance investigation has been the subject of two sets of

Committee hearings. FBI Director Louis Freeh and the Attorney

General's hand-picked Chief Prosecutor, Charles LaBella,

wrote lengthy memos to the Attorney General advising her that

she must appoint an Independent Counsel under the mandatory

section of the Independent Counsel Statute. . . .

That mandatory section does not leave it to the discretion of the Attorney General, but the Attorney General declined to appoint independent counsel.

In hearings conducted before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, which I chaired, Attorney General Reno was questioned extensively on the evidence, which showed that hard money was being discussed as the matter of fundraising to be undertaken by Vice President Gore.

Attorney General Reno did not consider a very critical piece of evidence written by a man named Strauss who had attended the meetings. The Strauss memo contained the notation of a certain percentage of hard money and a certain percentage of soft money. Attorney General Reno did not consider that because, as she testified, it did not refresh the recollection of Mr. Strauss.

Well, there are a number of exceptions to the hearsay rule. One is when a piece of paper is reviewed by a witness and it refreshes his prior recollection, and another is when the witness testifies that the notes were made contemporaneously with the discussion and it constitutes prior recollection recorded, which is an exception to the hearsay rule and the witness does not have to remember what had occurred.

That critical piece of evidence was not considered by Attorney General Reno. So here again are issues which are appropriate for inquiry on the character issue.

On the issue of whether Mr. Holder will exercise sufficient independence, Vice President Gore sought to explain to the FBI that he was out of the room a good bit of the time of the discussion because, as he had put it, he had consumed a lot of iced tea on that occasion. Well, these are matters which the independent counsel statute was designed to deal with, to conduct a further investigation, to consider all of the ramifications, and not to show favoritism because the subject of an investigation happened to be the Vice President of the United States. Mr. Holder's role in advising the Attorney General on that matter, his role as Deputy Attorney General, is an appropriate matter for inquiry.

The third issue to be inquired into involves the hearings on the so- called FALN organization, the Armed Forces of Puerto Rican Nationalists. The FALN was an organization linked to over 150 bombings, threats, kidnappings, and other events which resulted in the deaths of at least six people and the injuries of many more between 1974 and 1983. Four of the persons who received clemency were convicted of involvement in the $7 million armed robbery of a Wells Fargo office.

In the face of this kind of conduct, and in the face of a report by the pardon attorney in the Department of Justice, the actions of Deputy Attorney General Holder were very extensive in what eventuated in the granting of clemency.

The Department of Justice sent the matter back for another evaluation, apparently dissatisfied with the recommendation of the pardon attorney that the clemency application ought to be denied.

On this second occasion, according to press accounts, the submission by the pardon attorney ``made no specific recommendation'' regarding clemency, but it did reflect that the FBI and two U.S. attorneys' offices opposed clemency. Notwithstanding that record, clemency was granted. It is an appropriate matter for inquiry to see specifically what role Mr. Holder played.

Senator Hatch, who was the chairman of the committee at that time, had this to say about the conclusion:

President Clinton, who up to this point had only commuted

three sentences . . . offered clemency to 16 members of FALN.

This to me, and really almost every Member of Congress, was

shocking.

Senator Leahy joined in the criticism of the grant and raised the question about the failure of the Department of Justice to contact the victims. The matter came before the Senate, which rejected and criticized the grant of the clemency by a vote of 95 to 2.

All of these matters relate to judgment and relate to whether Mr. Holder had the kind of resoluteness displayed by Attorney General Griffin Bell or Attorney General Elliot Richardson to say no to his superior.

In raising these concerns, I am raising questions. I will approach these hearings next week--a week from Thursday--with an open mind to give Mr. Holder an opportunity to explain his conduct and his actions and to see if, on the totality of the record, he displays the requisite character and judgment and can justify the actions in these sorts of matters which would warrant the confidence of the Judiciary Committee, really representing the confidence of the American people.

After our experience with Attorney General Gonzales, and given the experience of other Attorneys General in the past and the very critical role which they play in upholding the rule of law, these are the sorts of issues which ought to be aired. Mr. Holder ought to have his day in court, so to speak--the hearing before the Judiciary Committee--to see if he can state the case which would warrant his confirmation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a detailed statement be printed in the Record at this point in full. What I have tried to do is to summarize a more detailed statement.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 33) to provide for the reconsideration and revision of the proposed constitution of the United States Virgin Islands to correct provisions inconsistent with the Constitution and Federal law.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in

which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the joint resolution under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Senate Joint Resolution 33 was introduced by the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Jeff Bingaman, to respond to concerns raised with the fifth proposed constitution for the United States Virgin Islands.

In order to encourage the adoption of their own constitutions, Congress in 1976 enacted legislation to authorize the people of the Virgin Islands and Guam to convene constitutional conventions and write their own local constitutions. This act, Public Law 94-528, sets out parameters that the supremacy of the United States Constitution must be recognized and adhered to as well as a process for the Federal review of any proposed constitution, including 60-day periods for both Presidential and congressional reviews. We are at the very end of the time prescribed for congressional action.

The U.S. Virgin Islands, an unincorporated territory acquired by the United States from Denmark in 1917, is one of only two U.S. States and territories that does not have a constitution written by the people who determine its basic governmental organization and structure. Instead, for more than half a century, the Virgin Islands have been under the governance of a Federal law known as the Revised Organic Act of 1954. Since 1964, the people of the Virgin Islands have attempted five times to write a constitution that brings the territory governance from the people. The first four efforts were unsuccessful.

On December 31, 2009, the Governor of the Virgin Islands submitted to President Obama a constitution drafted by the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the United States Virgin Islands. As required by Public Law 94-584, the President transmitted the constitution to Congress on March 1, 2010, for consideration.

In his submittal letter to Congress, President Obama indicated that he asked the Department of Justice, in consultation with the Department of the Interior, to provide their views on the proposed constitution. The Department of Justice, in a memorandum which accompanied the President's submittal letter, concluded that several features of the proposed constitution warranted analysis and comment and outlined at least eight areas in the proposed constitution that the Department of Justice believes should either be removed from the constitution or modified.

The resolution we are considering today attempts to respond to the concerns about the proposed constitution raised by the Justice Department by providing for its reconsideration and revision to correct provisions that are inconsistent with the United States Constitution and Federal law. It is a clear statement from Congress that the convention should consider these provisions; although, it does not dictate what the outcome of the ``reconsiderations'' should be.

This resolution also represents a compromise, and because of the importance of this document and the process to my constituents and to me, I would like to explain the journey that I have gone through as their Representative in the only branch of local or national government with the authority to make any changes.

Regardless of my personal opinion or understanding of the unique circumstances of the U.S. Virgin Islands, the document adopted by the convention does not meet the dictates of the act which authorized its creation.

My initial position was that we as a Congress should exercise our authority and amend it before sending the document back to the people of the Virgin Islands to vote on. I still feel strongly that the people at home are entitled to and deserve a constitutionally sound document upon which to come out and cast their votes. That has not changed.

Yet, after listening to the testimony given in the Congress--and when at home--to the many sides of the issue and after listening to the varied opinions of a broad cross-section of my community, a different position evolved. Despite my misgivings on the constitutionality of the document, my views became more consistent with my long held stance that the people of the territories should be the ones to decide on issues of their self-governance.

The people of the Virgin Islands voted for delegates to the Constitutional Convention. We as a Congress and I as their elected Representative should honor their position and their work on the people's behalf. Further, any provision that is unconstitutional would not stand, and therefore, no one need fear that any rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution would in any way be abridged.

The Senate felt differently. There was a degree of outrage at what appeared on the surface to be a denial of equal protection under the law. Although they first thought to reject the document outright, that was not an option, and so they were prepared to amend it.

The resolution which is before us today represents a compromise that I negotiated and which protects the right of the people of the Virgin Islands to draft and adopt a constitution of their own writing; and I do believe that, although the definitions of native and ancestral could be included to follow the dictates, however, of the authorizing act, any rights and privileges ascribed to them would need to be amended in the reconvening of the convention. There is precedent for the convention's reconvening to address administration concerns, as it happened in the case of the fourth constitutional draft document.

As I stated in my testimony before the Senate, it had been my hope that, once reconvened as prescribed in this resolution, no matter what was or was not done, the resulting document would go directly to the people of the USVI for the vote. I did not prevail in that argument, but given the constraints of time imposed by the other body's late action and the delays in reaching agreement on the resolution's being placed on the suspension calendar, I hope that we will get this to the people in time for the constitution to reconvene.

With that, I ask my colleagues to support the passage of this measure so that we can get it done today and get it to the President for his signature.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank my colleague for his support. As we said, we are at the very last few days with which the Congress has been prescribed to act, and I ask for support of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House regarding S.J. Res. 33, which the other body passed on June 17, 2010, and which relates to a proposed Constitution of the Virgin Islands of the United States adopted by the Fifth Constitutional Convention in the territory on May 26, 2009. This particular proposed Constitution was received by the House from the President of the United States with his comments earlier this year, and was read and referred to the Committee on Natural Resources. On March 17, 2010, I chaired an oversight hearing of the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife for the purpose of receiving testimony about the proposed Constitution. Testimony was received from a representative of the United States Department of Justice and from leaders in the Virgin Islands, including the Governor and the President of and five other Delegates seated to the Fifth Constitutional Convention. Witnesses addressed both the drafting and review process for the proposed Constitution as well as its substance. Most importantly, witnesses emphasized the meaning that the drafting and adoption of a constitution by and for the people of the Virgin Islands holds for our democracy and for an increased level of self-government for them.

An Act of the 94th Congress codified in Title 48 of the United States Code provides for a Congressional review process for any proposed and locally drafted Constitution for either the Virgin Islands or Guam. Both territories are the only organized jurisdictions presently under the U.S. Flag for which local government is not organized pursuant to a locally

drafted and adopted Constitution. Indeed, a principal purpose of the Act of the 94th Congress, U.S. Public Law 94-584, which governs this process, was to enable the people of both territories to organize a government pursuant to a Constitution of their own adoption and structured in accordance with their vision.

Absent such a locally adopted Constitution, the governments of the Virgin Islands and Guam have been organized by and derive legitimacy from separate Acts of Congress, which for all intents and purposes serve as de facto Constitutions for the respective territories. These statutes are the Revised Organic Act of 1954 for the Virgin Islands, which superseded the Organic Act of 1936, and the Organic Act of 1950 for Guam.

The people of the Virgin Islands have duly elected five Constitutional Conventions since the enactment of the Revised Organic Act of 1954. Two Conventions in the Virgin Islands were convened prior to the enactment of U.S. Public Law 94-584--in 1964 and 1972, respectively--and three since--in 1978, 1980, and the most recent, the fifth such Convention convened in 2007. Positive steps toward increased self-government for the people of the Virgin Islands were realized as a result of the work of the 1964 and 1972 conventions, including an amendment by Congress to the Revised Organic Act that allowed for the Governor of the Virgin Islands to be chosen by popular election beginning in 1965. The work of the third and fourth conventions resulted in transmittals of whole proposed Constitutions to the Congress, and similarly served as a continued exercise of and toward greater self-government for the people of the Virgin Islands.

In 1977, one year following the enactment of U.S. Public Law 94-584, a Constitutional Convention was convened in Guam and composed of Delegates elected by the people of Guam. The particular proposed Constitution drafted by that Convention was not ultimately adopted by the people of Guam. Discussion arose then among the voters and leaders of Guam about whether approval of local constitutional government in Guam might preclude or be prejudicial to the exercise of their right to self-determination, and efforts in subsequent years were concentrated predominately on resolving the territory's ultimate political status.

The Fifth Constitutional Convention of the Virgin Islands marks another point in the continued journey of the people of the Virgin Islands toward increased self-governance and their commitment to a democratic form of government. The President noted such in his comments to Congress on this most recent, proposed Constitution. While certain legal questions have been raised regarding several of its features that are noted in the President's comments, the proposed Constitution in and of itself represents significant effort and work undertaken by leaders in the Virgin Islands dedicated to their community and to our democracy.

I commend the leadership that our colleague, Mrs. Christensen, has brought to bear in this process and in all issues pertaining to governance in the territories. This body is now considering a measure that the Senate has sent to us. I would be remiss if I did not note the implications for my district, Guam. As leaders in Guam may in the future decide to again take up the work to draft and adopt a Constitution locally, it is important that Congress remain cognizant of and open to such opportunity.

S.J. Res. 33 proposes to amend the underlying statutory scheme governing such a process to allow for formal revision of a proposed Constitution after it has been initially transmitted to the President and Congress. In doing so, it requires a reconvened Constitutional Convention to resubmit a proposed Constitution in any form it may so revise it to the Governor of the Virgin Islands and the President. In amending Section 5 of U.S. Public Law 94-584 for this purpose, S.J. Res. 33 would separate and designate as separate subsections the existing four sentences of such Section. Additionally, it would insert a new subsection (c) in the middle of the existing language to provide for the resubmitting requirement. However, the proposed amendment of the Senate would only insert a reference to the Governor of the Virgin Islands in this instance despite the fact the underlying statute is structured such that the process is to apply both to the Virgin Islands and Guam, respectively. Revisiting this language may become important should leaders in Guam at any point in the future again convene a Constitutional Convention.

Ultimately, it is important for Congress to remain responsive to and supportive of leaders in both territories as they work to advance local self-government and provide for the rule of law.

Mr. President, the U.S. Virgin Islands is an unincorporated territory of the United States that was acquired from Denmark in 1917. It is one of only two United States territories which does not have a locally adopted constitution to provide for basic governmental organization and operations. Instead, the Virgin Islands government operates under the Revised Organic Act of 1954, as amended, a Federal law written by Congress (48 U.S.C. 1541-1645).

In 1976, to enhance local self-government, Congress enacted Public Law 94-584, which, as amended, authorizes the people of the Virgin Islands to convene a constitutional convention and draft a constitution. The law provides for two consecutive 60-day periods for Presidential and Congressional review. Upon receiving a proposed constitution from the President, Congress may approve, modify, or amend the document by joint resolution, but if Congress does not act within its 60 legislative day review period, then the constitution is deemed approved by Congress. If Congress approves the proposed constitution, or passes modifications or amendments, it then goes before the Virgin Islands voters to be accepted or rejected in a referendum. Since 1964, the people of the Virgin Islands have attempted five times to write a constitution, but previous efforts have been unsuccessful.

On December 31, 2009, the Governor of the Virgin Islands submitted a proposed constitution drafted by the Fifth Constitutional Convention to President Obama, and it was transmitted to Congress with administration comments. The end of the 60 legislative day Congressional review period is June 30.

In his February 26, 2010, message to Congress, President Obama attached the proposed constitution and a memorandum of the Justice Department which noted that several features of the proposed constitution warranted comment: 1, the absence of an express recognition of United States sovereignty and the supremacy of Federal law; 2, provisions for a special election on the Virgin Islands territorial status; 3, provisions conferring legal advantages on certain groups defined by place and timing of birth, timing of residency, or ancestry; 4, residence requirements for certain offices; 5, provisions guaranteeing legislative representation of certain geographic areas; 6, provisions addressing territorial waters and marine resources; 7, imprecise language on certain provisions of the proposed constitution's bill of rights; 8, the possible need to repeal of certain Federal laws if the proposed United States Virgin Islands constitution is adopted; and 9, the effect of congressional action or inaction on the proposed constitution. I refer you to the President's message and DOJ memorandum in the March 1, 2010, Congressional Record, page S856. Both in the memorandum and in testimony on May 19 before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the Justice Department recommended that ``the provisions conferring legal advantages on certain groups defined by place and timing of birth, timing of residency, or ancestry. . .'' Item 3 above--be removed from the constitution and that consideration be given to shortening the resilence requirements for certain officers--item 4--and to revising the provisions concerning territorial waters and marine resources--item 6.

I am pleased to join with the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Senator Murkowski, in introducing this resolution to provide for the reconsideration and revision of the proposed constitution of the Virgin Islands to correct provisions that are inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution and Federal law. More specifically, the resolution would

amend P.L. 94-584, as amended, to provide that Congress may urge the convention to reconvene, but following reconsideration and revision of the proposed constitution, it would not be sent back to Congress for review. Instead, the U.S. President would have 60 calendar days to provide administration comments to the Governor and Congress, and to publish those comments in the Federal Register. Then, the revised proposed constitution would be submitted to the voters for approval or disapproval. If the Constitutional Convention fails to reconvene, or if the convention fails to make revisions, then there will be no referendum of approval or disapproval of the proposed constitution by the voters of the Virgin Islands, and this process ends.

It is challenging for Congress to act within the 60 legislative day review period as established by P.L. 94-584, as amended, ending June 30. The approach taken in this resolution to respond to the Federal concerns raised with the proposed constitution has been reached in consultation with counsel for the Virgin Islands Convention, and with the Delegate and Governor of the Virgin Islands. While there were differing views on how Congress should proceed, I appreciate the cooperation and commitment of all involved in working out this consensus approach.

There are few more solemn duties in government than that of developing and adopting a constitution. I commend the delegates to the Virgin Islands Constitutional Convention for their effort and their commitment to this solemn duty. I also urge them to carefully consider the issues raised by the President and Congress and to revise the proposed constitution by removing or amending those provisions that are in conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

For generations, the people of the Virgin Islands have been a part of the United States political family and together we share allegiance to our Nation and to the principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Under this resolution, the delegates will have the choice of conforming the proposed constitution to these shared principles or of endorsing the conflicts between the proposed constitution and the U.S. Constitution. Endorsing these conflicts will most certainly result in either disapproval of the proposed constitution by the voters of the Virgin Islands, or years of litigation that will eventually strike down these provisions. I urge the delegates to take this rare opportunity to bring closure to the process--to make the needed revisions and to be remembered for their leadership in bringing a constitution to the people of the Virgin Islands.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Jeff Bingaman, the Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, in introducing this Joint Resolution to urge the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the United States Virgin Islands to reconvene for the purpose of reconsidering and revising its proposed constitution. Let me first commend the delegates of the Virgin Islands Fifth Constitutional Convention for their hard work and efforts in drafting and putting forward this proposed constitution. Their commitment to resolving this issue and getting a constitution enacted for the people of the United States Virgin Islands should be applauded.

The Chairman has clearly laid out the historical and legislative background of the United States' relationship with the U.S. Virgin Islands and the process for Congress to consider a proposed constitution. He has also explained the concerns and issues expressed by the Administration about some provisions in the proposed constitution and that under Public Law 94-584, the only options available to Congress are to approve, amend, or revise the constitution. Disapproval is not an option. Because time is short, Congress only has 60 legislative days to take action, it is unlikely we will be able to reach an agreement on the proposed changes before June 30, 2010, which is the end of the 60 legislative days. If Congress does not act before then, the proposed constitution will be deemed approved with no changes.

As a result, the Chairman and I are introducing this Joint Resolution to amend P.L. 94-584 to allow Congress to urge the constitutional convention to reconvene. In accordance with this change to the law, the joint resolution urges the Fifth Constitutional Convention to reconvene for the purpose of reconsidering and revising the proposed constitution in response to the concerns outlined by the executive branch. It is my understanding that should Congress pass this joint resolution, the 60 legislative day clock will stop. It is also my understanding that should this Joint Resolution be enacted, there are three courses of action for the Fifth Constitutional Convention: do not reconvene; reconvene but do not revise the proposed constitution; or reconvene and revise the proposed constitution. If the convention were to choose not to reconvene, or to reconvene but not revise, then the process is dead, there is no further consideration of the proposed constitution, and it does not go to the people of the Virgin Islands for a vote.

If, however, the convention reconvenes and does revise the proposed constitution, then the revised proposed constitution would simultaneously be submitted to the Governor of the Virgin Islands and the President of the United States. The President would then have 60 calendar days to notify the Convention, the Governor, and Congress of the comments of the President on the revised proposed constitution, and publish the comments in the Federal Record. Once the comments have been published in the Federal Record, the revised proposed constitution would be submitted to the qualified voters of the U.S. Virgin Islands for acceptance or rejection.

The delegates to the convention have the choice to bring the proposed constitution in line with the U.S. Constitution and Federal statutes. It is my preference to see the Convention reconvene and make these changes themselves, rather than have the courts impose them through litigation. This is the fifth attempt to establish a constitution for the people of the U.S. Virgin Islands and I am hopeful that this attempt, with the necessary revisions, will be successful.